1949 Averbakh I reproductions compared to the original

I’m super happy to be one of the 25 people who own the Indian Chess Company’s limited edition 1949 Averbakh I reproduction. Or rather, will own; my wife got me the set for my upcoming 2-year sobriety in January!

I had a quick glance at the set in person, but I have yet to actually hold the pieces and admire them on a board. But I’ve been admiring the set in other people’s photos. The antiquing is the best I’ve ever seen. And the details are beautiful from what I’ve seen. Having said that though, I don’t think the Indian Chess Company prioritizes accuracy to the originals they reproduce, which does sadden me a bit. Their recent Botvinnik–Flohr II set with panther knights does look beautiful, but the knights look nothing like the original panther knights.

Fortunately, the 1949 Averbakh I reproduction is a lot closer to the original, but there are some significant differences. First, here is an image of the reproduction for reference:

And here is an original set for comparison (from the collection of Alexander Chelnokov):

The differences between the two sets are as follows:

1. The reproduction has beefier pedestals than the original. This is the difference most people who own the set mention, and emphasize that they got the set for its beauty rather than its accuracy to the original per se. I got the set for that reason as well, although I would have preferred accuracy to the original.
2. The rings above the collars of the royals and bishops are the same size in the original; in the reproduction, the bottom ring is wider. I don’t know why they did that.
3. The queen and bishop of the original are taller. I think I prefer the proportions of the reproduction though; I do like the taller queen of the original, but I think it’s proper to bring the bishop closer to the knight hierarchically.
4. The miter of the original is a bit more slender, but also a bit rounder near the top; the reproduction has a sharper teardrop shape.
5. The pawns of the original feature trifurcating pedestals; like the Smyslov design (although less severely), the pedestal widens towards the collar. In the reproduction, the pedestal widens a little bit, but it far more significantly widens at the bottom. Effectively the design of the pedestal of the pawn has been reversed compared to the original. I find this unfortunate, as the original pawn design is far more elegant.
6. This I consider to be the most significant difference of all. The original knight had this S-shape to the body which brings balance to the design, whereas the reproduction leans forward without that strong backlean as counterbalance. The ears also seem shorter and more forward; the original has more upright ears. And the shape of the eyes are quite different; the original has more of a mean stare. I find it very unfortunate that they deviated so significantly from the original with the knight design.
7. And of course, the black king finial is white. The black queen’s finial is the same color as the white pieces though, so I like that the reproduction made the king finial in the opposite color to match the queen, rather than making it white.

Despite these differences, I still think it’s an amazing set. It looks absolutely gorgeous despite not being entirely true to the original—and in some respects maybe because of it. Plus, it’s an amazing set for the price!

—

Alexander Chelnokov reproduction

But there is an Averbakh I reproduction out there that is much more accurate to the original; since Alexander Chelnokov owns an original set, he was able to reproduce it in all its glory. See below.

The antiquing of the white pieces doesn’t look as convincing as the Indian Chess Company reproduction, and I’m sure the price isn’t going to be as attractive as what the Indian Chess Company offered their set at. But it gets most of the things I outlined above right—except, just like the ICC reproduction, Alexander made the black king finial in the opposite color rather than white. I’ve observed two more differences:

1. While the knights look more fierce than the ICC reproduction due to the eye design, it’s still not quite right, as the original features the pupils further back, with more white of the eye showing in front of the pupil; in Alexander’s reproduction, there is more white of the eye behind the pupil.
2. The manes of the knights are at quite a steep angle; the manes of the original are more horizontal.

All in all though, it’s a far more authentic reproduction. I would love to own both sets not only because I just love the design, but because I love the idea of owning several reproductions in order to compare them.

—

Oldset reproductions

In fact, I would love to own the reproduction by Oldset below at some point. This one is in the possession of Steven Kong (Chess Praxis), who collaborated with Oldset to make this reproduction. He collaborated with the Indian Chess Company as well, in fact. Sadly Oldset is no longer with us, so I’m unlikely going to be able to acquire an Oldset reproduction; I doubt anyone is willing to part with their Averbakh I by Oldset. But a girl can dream! I just love the feather-like manes of this knight. I don’t know where this feature comes from, as it’s not seen in the original set in Alexander’s possession. Maybe it’s from a different Averbakh I set? It’s certainly a feature often seen in other Soviet sets, like the GM2 Bronstein sets, the Yunost/Voronezh sets, and the similar-looking but higher-quality Borodino sets.

And below is Noshir Patel with an earlier version of an Oldset reproduction; he also owns the revised knights above. I was astounded by the beauty of this set when I first saw it, and was quite desperate to find out what set it was. Unfortunately Patel has his comments on Facebook closed so I couldn’t ask him what set it is. Fortunately, about a month later, the Indian Chess Company came out with their reproduction, and I found out about the Averbakh I set and the other reproductions.

—

Conclusion

The knight design varies the most in all these sets, but I find each set beautiful and desirable. Perhaps one day I can own more than one reproduction—possibly even acquire an original set! I just love the Averbakh I design! Together with Botvinnik–Flohr I, Botvinnik–Flohr II, and the Smyslov chessmen, it’s ranking among my favorite Soviet designs.

Oh by the way, one funny feature of the Averbakh set is that the knights are flat! They were in the original set as well. Here you can see different angles of the ICC knights:

I find it funny that most people who own the reproduction hide this fact by showing the knights in profile only. But as you can see in the 1949 championship photo below (upscaled and enhanced with AI), Averbakh himself did so as well! To be fair though, I’ve seen him do that with various other sets; I guess it was just his thing to play with the knights in profile.