3D-Printed Dune Chess Set(parametric-architecture.com)
parametric-architecture.com
3D-Printed Dune Chess Set
https://parametric-architecture.com/3d-printed-dune-chess-set-by-rory-noble-turner/
76 comments
A layer of metaphorical depth
It's a beautiful set, I like how each side was translated to smooth/rippled and the textures are very pleasing to look at - like a miniature playable cast of desert characters. I agree the pieces are a bit difficult to distinguish though, especially the queen and bishops which seem to mostly differ in height but not so much in form.
Upvoted because as a work of art it's beautiful and as a product of technology it's neat to see that printing with quartz is possible. But it must be said that the distinguishability of the pieces is lacking.
Makes the game more interesting. As long as both sides are equally handicapped it’s fine.
I mean we all saw that but the entire text was about that they are very different because they feel different. Doubt you read it.
Novelty sets like these are deeply unpleasant for regular chess players, because they interfere with normal pattern recognition. There's a huge difference between being able to tell the pieces apart and being able to read the board at a glance. It's like reading a book in bad handwriting instead of clear type - you can decode it with enough effort, but you can't read fluently or scan the text.
I think the parent commenter did read that and their concern is that tournament chess has a touch-move rule (if you touch a piece you have to move it).
This set is certainly a cool art piece, but not particularly functional if a player has trouble distinguishing pieces visually.
The queen looks like a slightly larger version of the bishop (or is that the knight?), I could see someone confusing them if they're sitting at different levels.
This set is certainly a cool art piece, but not particularly functional if a player has trouble distinguishing pieces visually.
The queen looks like a slightly larger version of the bishop (or is that the knight?), I could see someone confusing them if they're sitting at different levels.
[deleted]
I thought the same in picture but in the article author says he used different texture (one smooth and one rippled) for both parties. I give I’m the benefit of the doubt because fine texture can appear very different in reality than photo.
Edit:
> For a game of chess to function effectively it’s crucial you clearly differentiate between both opposition pieces, and, the alternate spaces on which those pieces play. In a mono-material set such as this, a binary contrast between rippled and smooth surfaces (reflective of the contrasting states of sand) become the primary signifier of this difference.
Edit:
> For a game of chess to function effectively it’s crucial you clearly differentiate between both opposition pieces, and, the alternate spaces on which those pieces play. In a mono-material set such as this, a binary contrast between rippled and smooth surfaces (reflective of the contrasting states of sand) become the primary signifier of this difference.
I read that but I honestly can't see any difference in the photos they gave. You're right that it might be different in person.
I see the rippling and the smooth pieces, that one is ok. For me what is hard to distinguish are the individual pieces from each other within one colour. The knight from the bishop from the pawn, etc. It is possible to figure them out, but at least for me I can't see it at a glance. I have to think about it and compare them. (whereas with a more traditional set I see it immediately)
I think a standard set optimises for usability over aesthetics.
I think this artwork optimises for aesthetics over usability.
Both sets are aesthetically pleasing and usable, just to different degrees.
I think that’s ok? I’ve seen many chess sets whose primary function was aesthetic rather than to be played.
The thing with aesthetics is that it’s highly subjective.
I think this artwork optimises for aesthetics over usability.
Both sets are aesthetically pleasing and usable, just to different degrees.
I think that’s ok? I’ve seen many chess sets whose primary function was aesthetic rather than to be played.
The thing with aesthetics is that it’s highly subjective.
Arguably, every non-standard set is made for aesthetics (and provides a worse playing experience).
If you are a chess player, you are thinking strategy and tactics, and the pieces (at best) blend into the mental background, and (at worst) are a distraction from the game.
Which leaves custom sets to the realm of the collector and the enthusiast, people who like to have and think about, but not so much to do.
If you are a chess player, you are thinking strategy and tactics, and the pieces (at best) blend into the mental background, and (at worst) are a distraction from the game.
Which leaves custom sets to the realm of the collector and the enthusiast, people who like to have and think about, but not so much to do.
Insofar as one of the defining characteristics of art is the constraints you impose upon yourself, one of the fundamental constraints of making an art piece out of something functional is that you should either preserve its usability, or break it in a way that makes a statement. This does neither.
The concept is great, the board is absolutely beautiful, and, at first glance, the curve is aesthetically pleasing while not getting in the way of reading the board. Texture as the "colour" works great. The figures, though, just look like they ran out of steam, it's like the "horse drawing" meme. They're not evocative of chess pieces, they're not particularly evocative of sand structures either. They're just... there. They're pretty enough, I guess, but in a generic way.
When you add to that that the photos have an impossible pawn formation, it kind of screams of "I don't actually care about the subject of my art piece".
The concept is great, the board is absolutely beautiful, and, at first glance, the curve is aesthetically pleasing while not getting in the way of reading the board. Texture as the "colour" works great. The figures, though, just look like they ran out of steam, it's like the "horse drawing" meme. They're not evocative of chess pieces, they're not particularly evocative of sand structures either. They're just... there. They're pretty enough, I guess, but in a generic way.
When you add to that that the photos have an impossible pawn formation, it kind of screams of "I don't actually care about the subject of my art piece".
It would certainly could serve as a fun challenge for experienced chess players.
But I'm let down because my chess partner is a 9 year old who is still learning basic strategies.
But I'm let down because my chess partner is a 9 year old who is still learning basic strategies.
The standard set optimizes for mass production. All pieces except the knight can be turned on a lathe, with minor post-processing to cut notches in the rook and bishop.
Older chess sets like the Lewis Chessmen from the 1200s look substantially different, having both better aesthetics and usability than the currently popular set. Like having a bishop that is recognizable as a bishop, not a medium-height round thing with a notch in the top.
If you don't want to imitate the standard chess set, improving on it isn't that difficult as long as you don't care about mass production from wood. This set somehow manages to be worse
Older chess sets like the Lewis Chessmen from the 1200s look substantially different, having both better aesthetics and usability than the currently popular set. Like having a bishop that is recognizable as a bishop, not a medium-height round thing with a notch in the top.
If you don't want to imitate the standard chess set, improving on it isn't that difficult as long as you don't care about mass production from wood. This set somehow manages to be worse
> I think that’s ok?
Oh yeah. That's a reasonable tradeoff.
Just aziaziazi's comment made it sound like the only aspect where distinguisability matters is the colour. So I pointed out that I don't have a problem telling the sides apart, while have more of a problem distinguishing the piece's type.
But as you say this is a decorative chess set, and in that regard I think it is a very sucesfull one.
Oh yeah. That's a reasonable tradeoff.
Just aziaziazi's comment made it sound like the only aspect where distinguisability matters is the colour. So I pointed out that I don't have a problem telling the sides apart, while have more of a problem distinguishing the piece's type.
But as you say this is a decorative chess set, and in that regard I think it is a very sucesfull one.
Oh got it now!
i was gifted a glass set once where black's pieces were matte glass and white's pieces were clear glass, so quite a striking texture difference
it was still unplayable and more of a decoration
it was still unplayable and more of a decoration
I guess you can get the same effect by just printing with good old PLA, and then dipping it into glue and then into sand.
or any PLA plastic since you're covering it in sand
That's a great idea. Do you have any other ideas for finishing the other half of the pieces. Graphite seems too messy, and I'm not sure the different sands will look different enough.
I imagine the details that currently (and insufficiently in my opinion) distinguish the colors would be obliterated.
I imagine the details that currently (and insufficiently in my opinion) distinguish the colors would be obliterated.
In the spirit of Dune, you should dip them in spice melange. However, given current shortages, you could get away with using iron oxide instead.
There’s black sand! Volcanic sand from Iceland is perfectly black and would be a great way to distinguish them
You can also by any color of "sand" you like at your local craft/hobby shop.
Glue on silica carbide. It's usually darker colored and has a very aggressive texture (used for grips on pistol handles and skateboards among other things).
Just beautiful. We are experimenting with ceramic gelcasting lately[1]. It involves the use of a gel-based slurry, typically made by mixing ceramic powders (such as zirconia, alumina, or silicon carbide) with a liquid binder and a gelling agent in a 3D printed mold. It is a versatile manufacturing method used to create complex ceramic parts.
Upon reading the article it occurred to me that the same method could be used to make those kinds of "dune core" pieces, with sand instead of ceramic powders. There must be a sand-binder-gelling solution formulation that can handle the task.
[1]https://voxleone.com/2024/03/05/3d-printing-im-making-a-500c...
Upon reading the article it occurred to me that the same method could be used to make those kinds of "dune core" pieces, with sand instead of ceramic powders. There must be a sand-binder-gelling solution formulation that can handle the task.
[1]https://voxleone.com/2024/03/05/3d-printing-im-making-a-500c...
Would be nice to see a Battle Chess [1] version of this!
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Chess
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Chess
Reminding me that this was a thing was a wonderful holiday gift. Thank you!
More decorative than functional but beautiful nontheless and could be iterated to make it a better chess set. Maybe mixing different types of sand as a finishing coat on the pieces? (vocanic and coral for the pieces and quartz sand for the board)
> Amidst this decline of everyday physical sensation; the Dune Chess Set represents an investigation into themes of tactility and intimacy in an attempt to catalyse connection between users, their bodies, and the world around them
This is either a human writing overly complex, abstract prose, or an LLM. I’d hoped for interesting text to accompany the admittedly very unique chess set, but this is just overwrought and abstract for no good reason.
This is either a human writing overly complex, abstract prose, or an LLM. I’d hoped for interesting text to accompany the admittedly very unique chess set, but this is just overwrought and abstract for no good reason.
I won't discredit how beautiful this set turned out, but by my eyes the pieces are not particularly easy to (quickly) distinguish from one another (i.e. rook vs pawn vs bishop). Gorgeous to look at though!
I was hoping that someone had created a ruleset and prop reproduction of the 'chess' of the dune universe 'cheops'. The prop from dune 2 is so great but barely seen on screen: https://dune.fandom.com/wiki/Cheops?file=Cheops_chess_game_c...
It's got a nice 'go' feel especially with the bowls of pieces, that engraved board is great.. just a great prop. Big ups to the production designers.
It's got a nice 'go' feel especially with the bowls of pieces, that engraved board is great.. just a great prop. Big ups to the production designers.
Makes me think of Bugles Corn Chips.
I imagine it might take a bit to get used to the different shapes but I quite like the idea of having different elevation for the ranks. I think that would help learners develop a more intuitive understanding of their importance. Something I'm only acquiring now as I'm teaching my children.
Any new chess set with unfamiliar designs takes a bit of adjustment
Possible gameplay addition in dune chess where certain piece ends up on a certain square and gets eaten by the worm
Btw, is there any tabletop Dune game?
There is - Dune Imperium (https://boardgamegeek.com/boardgame/316554/dune-imperium). It is quite good.
Gorgeous, but I'd love to see some actual differentiation of form between the various pieces - going to the obvious source of inspiration, sand worms, stillsuits, the rocks of the seitch, and the insect-like forms of the ornithopter all could lend form to the pieces.
It's "dune" as in a pile of sand, not "Dune" as in the novel.
Is it? Every usage of the word "dune" is capitalized in both the article and the link.
I clicked through because I was hoping to see something related to the book or movies, or even the Jodorowsky project that never materialized.
I clicked through because I was hoping to see something related to the book or movies, or even the Jodorowsky project that never materialized.
In article text bodies
> the Dune Chess Set
is capitalized as that's the product name, eg: our new Honda Accord .. etc.
Elsewhere in the article the word is capitalized as it appears in
Title Case Headings Or Subheadings In Which Every Word Including Dune Is Capitalized.
> the Dune Chess Set
is capitalized as that's the product name, eg: our new Honda Accord .. etc.
Elsewhere in the article the word is capitalized as it appears in
Title Case Headings Or Subheadings In Which Every Word Including Dune Is Capitalized.
Yeah, I get that, but the mental association is there already, might as well lean into it
Wow, I've never seen a critique backed solely by word association. I am guessing the artist made exactly what they wanted to.
The critique and the suggestion I made are not one and the same. The critique is that the design of the pieces are far too similar for this chess set to be comfortable to play. The suggestion is one possible direction in which one could go to rectify the critique (thus the hyphen, and the mention of possible inspiration).
btw, on sale at https://www.sandhelden.de/product-page/dune-chess-set for 3490 euros.
I couldn't find it in the article, maybe I missed it, but does anybody have more information on the printer / material used besides just quartz?
I'd actually prefer a Dune2000 derived chess set.
Very nice looking movie theme chess set.
This Rook Tower theme pack-away wooden chess board is also wonderfully designed for aesthetic:
https://odditymall.com/rook-tower-pack-away-wooden-chess-boa...
This Rook Tower theme pack-away wooden chess board is also wonderfully designed for aesthetic:
https://odditymall.com/rook-tower-pack-away-wooden-chess-boa...
Dito on the upvote, esthetics are pleasing and I love the transition of the board. Not sure if that was sand or not… but now in hunting for the files… would make a nice gift for a friend that has it all, rated at 2000+ in chest.
Architects really know how to run with the purple prose.
Edit: cool looking chess set.
Edit: cool looking chess set.
To me, this is the worst kind of design.
1. Aesthetics completely annihilates function. I mean good luck figuring the pieces apart.
2. To me it looks like shit. I mean the pieces look ok-ish (I don't really like the curve stuff, I think they could be a lot better, but ok), but the board, oh my god it's hideous. The idea of the curved board is so bad. ugh. It's sad though cause the material is awesome.
Come on architects, you can do a lot better than that.
1. Aesthetics completely annihilates function. I mean good luck figuring the pieces apart.
2. To me it looks like shit. I mean the pieces look ok-ish (I don't really like the curve stuff, I think they could be a lot better, but ok), but the board, oh my god it's hideous. The idea of the curved board is so bad. ugh. It's sad though cause the material is awesome.
Come on architects, you can do a lot better than that.
> 1. Aesthetics completely annihilates function. I mean good luck figuring the pieces apart.
It's very modern. Like those web sites that are light grey on darker grey. And the fact that you can't see if a square is white or black when a piece is on it is like they hide interactable elements in web 3.99 or whatever they're at now.
It's very modern. Like those web sites that are light grey on darker grey. And the fact that you can't see if a square is white or black when a piece is on it is like they hide interactable elements in web 3.99 or whatever they're at now.
[deleted]
Wow, this is a beautiful concept and execution! For me it’s a piece of art that challenges our relationship with materials in a way
I can feel the texture of that in my spine just looking at the pictures :/ I don't think I'd ever want to touch any of that
There is a whole market for chessboards that are not actually useful.
I prefer the official sizes/shapes.
I prefer the official sizes/shapes.
Wow that's beautiful.
Can you download this somewhere? I don't see it.
Can you download this somewhere? I don't see it.
they could’ve made the board have different texture as well?
Well, there’s no STL so no one will ever even be able to use this might as well have left it as a 3-D render
Sure, the article positions it as an art piece, but you're right. The fact that there is no STL puts this in the "ok cool. Next." bucket for the the vast majority of the 3d printing community.
Now I'm wondering about a gameplay twist "Arrakis Chess": Too much movement in a section of the board makes a 2x2 sandworm eat the pieces.
[deleted]
Really cool design
One thing that immediately jumps out at me about this chessboard is the use of varied ground plane -- how the back rows are high up, whereas the middle of the board is down below. The high ground really evokes a sense of power of the "senior" pieces, and casts the middle rows below as the inevitable battleground. One can imagine pieces mounting an uphill attack in the later stages of the game. Such a simple thing, and so effective!