"Exquisite" chess sets are among the worst kind of kitsch. Why? Because they are non-functional. No one would play a serious or even a friendly game of chess with them.
So what is their function, other than to convey clutter, confusion, and ugliness? Perhaps "to capture the game's global heritage."
I don't know much about the topic, but going off the article, and assuming a non-ornamental set;
There's really no reason to claim its non-functional; its just not useful for games against arbitrary players.
But its hardly a complex adaptation, requiring but a few games to achieve proficiency (this I know from my own experience with an ornamental set, against my brother)
Anyone you play with repeatedly can be played with on a variant set; and since I imagine most don't only play against randoms in a park/tournament, there's quite a bit of use to find.
And as the article notes, knowing an additional set doesnt detract from knowledge of the first (bilingual)
Tbh, the only reason I can think of to explicitly deny owning or using non-standard set, ignoring random pick-up games and tournaments, is either pretentiousness or genuine love for the Staunton set
So what is their function, other than to convey clutter, confusion, and ugliness? Perhaps "to capture the game's global heritage."