Chessboard StoreBuying guides
Materials

Staunton chess pieces explained: history, design and what the name means today

Where the Staunton chess pattern came from in 1849, who really designed it, how to recognise each piece, and what 'Staunton' means on a modern listing.

By Chessboard Store Staff · Published October 26, 2026

Some links on this page are affiliate links. If you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you. This guide is based on published standards and research; see how we research.

Almost every chess set you’ll see in a club, a tournament or a shop window uses the same design: the Staunton pattern. It’s so familiar that most people think of it simply as “what chess pieces look like.” But it has a specific origin, a slightly disputed designer, and a name that confuses buyers. Here’s the short version.

Before Staunton

In the first half of the 1800s there was no single standard set. Popular styles included the English Barleycorn, the St George, the French Régence and central European designs such as the Selenus pattern. Some were beautiful, but pieces could look alike, and tall, narrow designs tipped over easily. Playing an unfamiliar set meant spending time working out which piece was which.

1849: the pattern is registered

The key facts that most sources agree on:

  • 1 March 1849: the design was registered in Britain by Nathaniel Cooke (sometimes spelled Cook) under the Ornamental Designs Act of 1842. The British Museum and Chess.com both credit Cook(e) as the registrant.
  • John Jaques of London, a maker of games and turned goods, took on the right to make the sets. The British Museum and Chess.com describe Jaques as Cooke’s brother-in-law, while Wikipedia’s account links the families through the marriage of Cooke’s daughter to Jaques’s son.
  • September 1849: the sets were promoted in the Illustrated London News, where Howard Staunton, the leading English player of the day, wrote a chess column. The advertisement presented the pieces as appearing under Staunton’s patronage. Sources give 8 September for the advertisement and 29 September for Jaques supplying the retail trade.
  • Staunton’s name, and on early boxes his signature, gave the set its identity. That’s why we call it “Staunton” rather than “Cooke” or “Jaques.”

Who actually designed it?

This is where sources part ways, so it’s worth being honest about it:

  • The British Museum and Chess.com name Cooke as the person who registered the design and don’t credit anyone else with it.
  • House of Staunton, a modern maker, says the attribution is “open to much speculation” between Cooke, Jaques and Staunton.
  • Jaques of London, the firm that still exists today, says the design came out of its own workshop, with Cooke as the registrant rather than the sole designer.
  • Wikipedia notes both possibilities and suggests the result may combine Cooke’s idea with Jaques’s skill as a turner.

What nobody seriously claims is that Staunton designed it. He endorsed and promoted it.

Why it became the standard

The Staunton pattern did a few things better than what came before:

  1. Every piece is easy to tell apart, even at a glance, because each has a distinct top.
  2. Wide, weighted bases made the pieces steady. The original advertisement made a point of this.
  3. Simpler shapes were easier, and cheaper, to make in quantity, so more people could afford a set.
  4. A famous endorsement. Staunton’s name gave it credibility.

The British Museum’s curator notes that, under Staunton’s patronage, the design rapidly replaced earlier chessmen designs. Today FIDE, the international chess federation, says in its equipment standards that pieces should be of the Staunton style.

How to recognise each piece

PieceWhat its top represents
KingA crown topped with a cross. Tallest piece.
QueenA coronet, usually with a small ball on top
BishopA mitre (a bishop’s hat), usually with a slit cut into it
KnightA carved horse’s head and neck
RookCastle battlements
PawnA plain ball on a small base

The knight is the most famous detail. The British Museum describes the original knights as modelled directly on horses’ heads from the Parthenon frieze, the sculptures in the museum’s collection often called the Elgin Marbles. It’s also the piece that varies most between makers today, from plain to highly sculpted.

According to Chess.com, the very first sets also marked the king’s-side rook and knight differently from the queen’s-side pair, so players could tell them apart.

What “Staunton” means on a modern listing

Staunton is a pattern, not a brand. Any maker can produce Staunton-style pieces, and almost all do. When you see “Staunton chess set” in a listing, it tells you the shape of the pieces, nothing about quality, wood or weight.

So when you shop, read past the word “Staunton” and check:

Modern variations

All of these are still Staunton pieces:

  • Tournament plastic. Simple, tough, usually weighted plastic with a 3.75” king. The standard club and tournament piece; see our tournament guide.
  • Everyday wooden sets. Turned boxwood or similar, with a simpler knight.
  • Luxury carved sets. Heavily weighted ebony, rosewood or boxwood with elaborately carved knights.
  • Reproductions of historic patterns. Several makers sell “1849” or named-pattern reproductions modelled on early Jaques sets. Wikipedia lists 17 recognised variants that developed from the original between 1849 and the 1930s, and notes the knight is where they differ most.

What FIDE says about proportions

FIDE’s equipment standards describe Staunton pieces by proportion rather than by a single drawing. The 2022 standard, and the revised version in force since 1 March 2026, give these recommended heights:

PieceHeight
King9.5 cm
Queen8.5 cm
Bishop7 cm
Knight6 cm
Rook5.5 cm
Pawn5 cm

Heights may vary by up to 10% as long as the order stays the same. Each piece’s base should be 40–50% of its height. The standard also asks for a matte, non-shiny finish, a king top clearly different from the queen’s, and a bishop top clearly different from a pawn’s (a notch is suggested).

Where to buy

Sources