Searching for Tal's Set

I have a hunch Vikram's employees browse this forum on a regular basis and if there is enough interest it will surely be done.  And there is always the option for a custom order. 

But as stated before, Chess Bazaars repros are really more of homages/inspired-by than trying to be true replica.  Still, I think those chunky pawns could be accurately remade with only a handful of photographs to go by.

One of the most fascinating and rare chess sets in the history of Soviet chess. This set was used in the 30 th final URSS  chess Championship  - 1962 Yerevan-  21 November to 20 December.
Maybe it was still used in 63 Championship, but little else, so these chess pieces had a very limited manufacturing  and the few photos of this set came prove their rarity.
This set is extraordinary ! The relationship between the pieces, the unique design, or the exquisite simplicity  of  the single pawns and Knights are amazing. The elegance and beauty of the King and Queen are remarquable. My experience tells me that  this Set have not the size of the GM pieces of the 70-80,  and the King is for sure 9cm or 9.5. That's my feeling.
"Misha" photo is of this Championship in round 11 with Nikolay Krougius. In the 32 move, black attack Tal Queen with Be5, Tal played Qd2 and win in 4 more moves with the advance of the d pawn! The game was a Spanish, Marshall Attack.

Another book that show this picture is “Study Chess With Tal” .

And now,  notice the subtleties of the Soviet-style sets that are sold on Etsy and other sites. I have two pawns that are almost, almost of Tal set,  but…however, just zoom to see that are not,  the are a close  variant, very approximate the original Tal photo.

That’s happen very often: beautiful sets, but Knights that not belong to that style, or pawns borrowed from other set.

I repeat: In the soviet chess sets, the unique true is the photos of players of the era.

Is the set of Tal picture replicable? Why not? The existing photos allow a replica almost equal to the original carving? Of course, since he does not want to invent or create something new in a style between "Kitsch" and corny.
A faithful reproduction of this magnificent set  it would have buyers ? Does anyone doubt that… yes?! This set was a precious moment in the history of chess, and a rarity, combined with  beauty.  The pictures do not lie.

Many thanks, Arlindo. I fully agree. I have a few of those pawns, too.

Hello Mr. Grau:

Unfortunately, I have nothing to add regarding the set used by Tal and others in the 1961 USSR Championship, but I have a question regarding Russian chess sets in general.

As you well know, Russian chess sets have a very distinctive look beginning with their wide, almost bulbous bases and relatively thin stems.  Then there is the unique spire-like finial on the king but the more traditional ball finial on the queen.  The finials are almost always a different color from the rest of the piece -- usual the color of the opponent's pieces -- and that includes the ball finial atop the bishops.

As to be expected, the shape but not opposite colored finials can also be seen in Russian travel sets.  Below is a Russian peg-in wood set (photo 1), a common Russian magnetic set with slightly different finials (photo 2), and a slightly less common Ukrainian/Russian magnetic set that is true to form (photo 3).

My question, and it is directed to anyone who has posted here: Where did this distinctive Staunton style originate and how did it become the dominant one in Russia?

Thanks to Fighting Bob for his great question and to Mr. MacMillan for his great response.

RC, I really enjoyed your analysis and writing of the situation.  It makes a lot of sense and seems definitely plausible.

Russian, and many, if not most other languages, do not use the same names for chessmen as English does.

There have never been any queens or bishops in chess in Russian. These pieces were always called "ферзь" (counselor) and "слон" (elephant) as in Farsi, although, curiously elephants were native neither to Russia or Persia. Knights were "конь" (horse, although the word was largely reserved to refer to the chess piece, as an etymologically completely unrelated word is usually used in Russian for the animal. Kings, however, were always called "король" (king), so there does not appear to have been any attempt ever made to eliminate any references in chess in Russian to either royalty, aristocracy or religion, either in general or to christianity in particular.

Most soviet chess sets did not have unusually wide bases in comparison with the height of the pieces, compared with most staunton pieces of the same era. Indeed, mostly the bases of soviet chess pieces were narrower. I would be more inclined to speculate that soviet era chessmen were designed simply to minimize manufacturing cost and time. Wooden chessmen were turned on a lathe, as quickly as possible, and as much cutting and carving as possible was eliminated as it took more time. Therefore,  no crosses, cruder "crowns", no cuts on the tops of bishops and often rooks, much less detailed knights (and from the mid-1970s usually not even any carving of knights whatsoever, but rather molded plastic tops of knights glued atop turned wooden bases), often fewer collars, no hollowing out of bottoms of chessmen for weighting nor often even the tops of rooks. Usually no weights, as they cost more money and take time to install. No felting of the bottoms of the pieces, but rather less expensive papering. Chess boards that were far too small for the chessmen as the smaller the board that the chessmen could be squeezed onto, the less material used, and no boxes for the chessmen as they could be stored inside a small folding board.

Hello RCMacmillan:

I genuinely appreciate, as I know others do, the time spent responding to the question.

Thanks for the explanation of how Nikolai Krylenko (read about him here; he had a 5-year plan for chess) politicized chess, making the game a practical and symbolic means of demonstrating to the rest of the world that Russia and the Communist system, a political philosophy in retrospect littered with distrust, suspicion and, unfortunately, millions of bodies, was intellectually superior to Western capitalism.  The history of Russia, inside and outside of chess, never fails to fascinate.

Regarding the pieces, I've never owned a full-sized Russian set so I didn't know about the lack of weighting.  I think your observations regarding the wide bases, thin stems, W.W.I helmet-spired king and un-mitered bishop, make sense when you're cranking pieces out as fast as you can, especially when your manufacturing processes are marginal.

Removing the symbolic cross from the king in an officially atheistic state makes sense too, though un-mitering the bishop was probably purely practical since in Russia this piece is an elephant or slon.

I, too, would like to hear from Russian chess historians on this matter.

Thanks again.

All the best,
Bob

Thank you for your post, Mr. Matra:

No doubt the practical was paramount, but are you sure of your statement, appropriately highlighted in red?  I don't think it's just an illusion that the bases appear bulbous -- wide and high -- compared to the stems.  Do you have a photo of a comparable, contemporaneous western Staunton set you could post.

Perhaps what needs to be explained is not the wide, high bases but the thin stems.  Why spend the time to lathe down the stem when you're in a hurry.  It's possible this was less practical and more cultural.  I wonder if there are precedents in Russian culture for this distinctive look.

Best regards,
Bob

Just look through all of the threads on this forum with lots of photographs of soviet chess sets, only look at all of them, and not just the ones that have wider bases in relation to the height of the chessmen.

I would hardly think it necessary to post any more photographs of staunton chess sets.

"what needs to be explained is not the wide, high bases but the thin stems."

You're begging the question.

It's been my assumption the thin stems were an attempt to make the pieces bottom heavy to increase stability, and perhaps make it easier to see the chess men more clearly on the smaller boards they were sold with. 

Yes, lower center of gravity without adding weights.  It makes sense.

I appreciate the detail of your initial post, but I don't think you've proven your case about the predominant width to height ratio in Russian sets being no different than the Stauntons of their day.  The Russian sets show a definite cultural shift away from the Western pattern.

By the way, it isn't just the ratio but the flat slope from the base to the stem when compared to most Stauntons.

I will agree that soviet pieces tended to be narrower in the middle than others, but they were also often just as wide at the top. The pieces tended to have wider bases in proportion to the middle portions of the chessmen, but not in proportion to their height.

There's little point to arguing about this. It can easily be determined. There are many level head-on photographs of all sorts of chess sets all over this forum and the internet. One just needs to actually measure the dimensions of the chessmen in these photographs.

That may be true about the width to height ratio, and it certainly can be measured, but both the lack of slope to the base I mentioned in the previous posting and the thin stem make the pieces appear squat and bulbous.  It's much like a person with a big rear end appearing shorter if they don't have much up top.  Come to think of it, perhaps the original turning was in honor of the 1920s Soviet factory woman. 

An apocryphal tale.

At a simultaneous exhibition one of the players had set up to play against the master with his old soviet chess set and board, which consisted of mismatched chessmen of varying sizes and colors gathered together from numerous different wooden and plastic chess sets and arrayed on a chess board on which they barely fit.

"I can't play with this set.", said the master upon arriving for the first time at the player's board. "Why not?", asked the player. "Because it's impossible to tell the pieces from one another.", replied the master. "I've never had any such problem,", answered the player, and continued, "and Grandmaster Miguel Najdorf didn't complain about this set either when I played against him, and he even played blindfold, too."

Interesting post, ZaidejasChEgis.  Were all the sets in the simul made in the USSR?

I've never seen this photo of Kasparov before -- cute kid -- but I was astonished to see the chess set he's using.  I recently won a set that shipped from the Ukraine; it's precisely this style.  It is one of the narrower and taller Soviet era sets with a 4-5/8-inch king including the finial.  It is weighted with very fine sand, which, unfortunately, is leaking due to the loosely glued paper disks over the bottom of the bases.

Here are a couple of photos of the set.

A very high percentage of sets this eBay seller lists have wide bottoms and narrow stems, but not this one.

Sand from Ukraine.  A nice bonus. 

I see those sets on ebay all the time selling for very modest amounts.  I'm sure it would be trivial to seal one of them to the point of making leakage impossible. 

Are the pieces very stable and suitable for play?

Very modest, in this case $19.99 with $25.00 shipping because of the weight.

Yes, they're stable.  I'll probably removed the sand from the king and see how large the cavity is, then replace it and epoxy the paper disk in place.  Unfortunately, I'll have to re-glue every single disk.

My other option is to replace the sand with modeling clay, perhaps modeling clay embedded with shot.  I'm certain that would make them heavier and even more stable, and I wouldn't have to worry about sand accidentally scratching my board.

By the way, here is a Belorussian set that can bring up to $100 with storage box and in very good condition.