Flohr-Botvinnik '33 chessmen musings

To me the essence of soviet chess design is this one (and what I used for inspiration as my first ever set).

F-B '33 and Smyslov designs are a lot more bizarre and more interesting though.

Been a while since I started this set, but I am pleased to say that the final felt has been glued on this morning.

My original suspicions about the cheap Flohr-Botvinnik repros have been confirmed by looking at various chess sets - it appears that there has been a range of designs between the "straight" B-F shapes (not too dissimilar to the repros) to extremely dendriformic "Smyslov" designs, with some sets falling in between the two extremes. Therefore my vision of this set is reasonably aligned with early Soviet shapes.

I sure am looking forward to all the games I'm going to lose with these exceptionally beautiful pieces.

Amazing, fine and vital. Your unpretentious opening choices further illustrate your sound attitude to chess. Thank you for all of this!

It's a lovely set and I hope you get much pleasure from owning such a gem.Regarding historical accuracy of so many chess set designs....To me,if it's a nice set and has real eye appeal,I don't care if there's some iota of difference from the original.Close enough is just fine,as long as it's well executed.....Just me!

The more I play with these, the more I like them.

For analysis, Minceta wins hands down, but for actual playing with classical time control this set is exceptional.

I've got at least 2 more early soviet sets that I want to turn at some point. One of them is a bit similar to this set. So I'll probably be firing up the lathe again in a few months (damn addiction!).

Also, worth giving some praise to Certabo for the ability to use my own pieces with an e-board.

I have always loved soviet chessmen with broad bases and slim tops. Look very stable. BF-2 in red dyed wood and maple looks eye candy. Where did you buy from

Wonderful - I hope to turn something similar one day. The minimalist knight is quite lovely.

Thank you. I am very happy with how the knights turned out. I think my carving skills have improved slightly, but also a lot rides on coming up with a design that works for your skill level and tools.

I feel like I've nailed the turning - after 3 chess sets it's a lot faster and more accurate. Still using the same set of basic tools.

I started prototyping a new set (another Soviet 1930s inspiration) but then the bearings in my old lathe decided they've had enough, so I need to replace the bearings before I can continue.

Since I don't have a real need for another set (I've got these for the eboard, dubrovnik for OTB & analysis and an old soviet club style for the kids to bash and abuse), the new set might wait, albeit I have to say, it's quite a looker.

A friend who's never turned anything has asked me to teach him how to turn chessmen, and it took us about 2 hours before he came up with a recognisable bishop. There's really not much you need to learn, as long as you take your time while turning and don't go for too fancy a design.

Incredible work!!!! That is a beautiful set!!!!!

Thank you very much!

Having used them for a wee while now, I'd confirm my original assessment that for playing classical controls this type of chessmen design (and it covers BFII, Smyslov and everythign in between - there were quite a few variations, most around 1930s I think) is perfection. There's a lot of other very nice, beautiful, interesting designs out there, but they don't really even come close.

What I find very exciting is that looking at these designs, one would think they were quite modern, while, in fact, they were designed almost 100 years ago. Incredible flight of design fantasy in early 20th century USSR.

I wouldn't recommend them for analysis or shorter time controls - the very tall chessmen, equal height of bishops & queens, the bases that are not quite as stable as Minceta, soviet GMs & Tals or various blitz sets - all of this means that there's better sets out there for analysing and playing fast.

Soviet sets are mostly not meant for blitz play. Also due to their very sleek shanks they look to be delicate. Is their a reason why the soviet sets have such sleek shanks/ upper body and very wide bases.

If you look at variations of Tal - that's very suitable for blitz. Other wide based sets, like the Bronstein or various GMs are quite blitz-able too imho, not that I know much about blitz to be honest. Stable bases, no very fine detailing that can break off.

Sleek shanks are just a design feature I think, while the wide bases were necessary for the cheap unweighted sets for the masses (as opposed to the weighted tournament sets).

Yeah, the tal set appears to be quite stable and durable but other sets like the Mordovian / Latvian not so much.

I agree wide bases do tend to increase the stability.

Muse away! Anything you post is always of interest.

Beauty. I wonder how some collectors are able to get such historic photographs from. They seem mostly unavailable on the internet.

Thanks pal.

That's a beauty. Design looks quirky.!