The evolution of usability in chess
Modern chess design has stood the test of time, but that wasn’t always the case. Sometimes less is more.
Chess has a long history, it dates back to the 7th century in India, where it was created as a war game. In some ways, a lot of the game has remained unchanged since the creation, but there have been some big moments in the evolution of the game. Today, we’re talking about one particular moment in chess history — when the pieces became standardized.
To put on my information architect hat for a minute, the word “piece” in chess has a few different meanings depending on the context (if you’re following my IA and chess blog series, I will be talking about ontology and chess in the future). Today we’re talking about chess piece as in the actual chessmen, all 16 pieces a player can move around the board.
What do you think of when you think about chess pieces? What do they look like?
Do they look like this, or something close to it, in your mind’s eye?
If you’re nodding along, that’s to be expected. The design above is from a very famous chess set called the Staunton chess set. It dates back to 1849, and is the first standardized chess set. It’s still used as the set for tournaments. The set is named after Howard Staunton, a great British chess player who lived during the time the set was created. The Staunton chess set is like the ultimate brand identity — like the chess equivalent of using Google as a verb for looking something up. This is the basis for most chess sets today, even my magnetic travel set pieces look something like this.
Historical UX of Chess
At the time the Staunton chess set was created, chess was a sport, but it also carried social context. Chess was a status symbol, and the pieces themselves were ornate, it showcased a person’s wealth to have a beautiful chess set in their home. It was also something men and women in Europe could play together. Chess cafes were popular at the time (really just coffee houses), and they were sometimes the central place for discussions around politics and a place where chess players frequented. Chess sets also varied from country to country what different pieces looked like.
For example -
In England, this is the Barleycorn set:
According to chess collector Ty Kroll, these Barleycorn pieces could easily tip over, they’re very top-heavy.
In Germany, they used the Selenus set:
The German set is beautifully ornate, but as you can see, three of the pieces look too similar. They were also too fragile, they tipped over. Being able to play a piece does not seem high on the list of priorities in this design if it’s difficult to identify and not easy to play.
In France was the Regence set:
This set looks sturdier than the other two, but again, differentiating pieces by eye is still difficult. What is worse, according to Kroll, is that these French sets were not using the bishop as a piece (instead using the fool — which piece is that? I have no clue).
If you were a player traveling from one country to another to play in a tournament, you can see how confusing this could be! Usability was not high on the list at that time. On top of that, imagine being at a tournament and having your opponent’s (or your) piece fall over and disturb everyone’s focus.
Let’s say that a player tried to keep at it with these fragile pieces. The chessboard itself has some labeling, a player would know which piece is which from the initial setup, but once those pieces get moved, it’s harder to keep track. A player get easily confused if you’re not familiar with a country’s design.
(A short aside — At the time of the Staunton chess set, there was a different type of chess notation, called descriptive chess notation, but I will save my thoughts on that for the labeling systems and chess post.)
In terms of how one would actually move the pieces on the board, these beautiful chess pieces are not very usable if a player can’t pinpoint what the piece does and be able to function as it should if it tips over. The thing that’s great about the Staunton chess set is that it’s instantly recognizable because each piece is distinct. It is form follows function.
If you look at the parts below the identifiable components, they’re smooth, they’re easy to grip. It is built with the player, the user, in mind. This design concept is 172 years old, and it stands the test of time. That makes for a strong usability testing. If it didn’t work, something else would have taken its place.
Lessons in chess on usability today
What we’ve learned today about chess pieces is still very relevant to the UX and design work on a website.
Site trends, frameworks, they can sometimes act like a status symbol online. Websites and mobile apps have social context, like chess used to — it’s a place we express our politics, we find out information, we can virtually gather. Users, like players, have an end goal in mind when they show up to a website. A site can look beautiful, but if the site is fragile like the pre-Staunton chess sets, then it’s going to be confusing and difficult for people to use.
The Staunton chess set is so wildly different from the other stylistic pieces of the time, and the focus around the players rather than the status symbol is what helps make it timeless. It’s almost rather simplistic, seems boring by comparison but that’s what gives it durability — it’s not about the flashy design, it’s about the usability. As a part of the tech industry, it’s not about chasing the trends, it’s about making quality websites and mobile apps that are usable by all and be easy to understand, for people to find what they need.
When we look at a modern interpretation of the classic Staunton chess style — designer Daniel Wells version in 2013 for the World Chess Organization, he didn’t do anything crazy to it. He just took the classic, elegant design and streamlined it a little bit to look a little bit more modern. It is otherwise the same in function and identification.
Recommended Reading
If you’d like to learn more about how the Staunton chess set got its design, there’s a great article in the Smithsonian Magazine by Jimmy Stamp.
If you’d like to read more about pre-Staunton chess sets, or more about the design of Staunton chess pieces, the Staunton Chess website has you covered.
If you’d like to read more about the World Chess Organization’s rebranding in 2013, click here.
