Flohr-Botvinnik '33 chessmen musings

As we are heading towards the start of 2023, I've decided it's time to start thinking about a new chess set. Hopefully, some soviet chess lovers will join the chat (and maybe even share some photos). I thought I'd share some of my musings about the '33 Flohr-Botvinnik set that Charles Grau has covered in great detail in one of his articles:

https://sovietchesssets.com/2022/07/25/chess-pieces-of-the-1933-botvinnik-flohr-match-an-ongoing-enigma/

 

There were several designs that I am interested in. The "Tal" set has been on my wishlist for a while. Another candidate is the "Bronstein" Grossmeister set, albeit it is too close to a soviet-style set that I already have. The straight-walled mansur tsarist chessmen photographed by Charles on his website make yet another set to add to the bucket list. As you can see, I draw a lot from inspiration from Grau's collection that he has so kindly shared with the rest of the world.

All of these chessmen look great, and I've even had a few attempts at trialling the "Tal" design. But there's one particular set that has kept me awake at night - the photo of Antonio Fabiano's early soviet set that is believed to be a rather close copy of the set used for the Flohr-Botvinnik match of '33.

 

There is just something special about it. Alien even. I don't think I've seen anything like it. The set on the photo appears to differ from commercially available Flohr-Botvinnik reproductions is several ways, but the most important features of the set above, to my eye are the elegant, thin stems that become wider as they reach up on the bishop, queen & king; the short, squashed bases; the strangely oversized heads resting on rather thin pedestals. Very different from chunky, almost straight walled, reasonably-proportioned (going by the photos) Flohr-Botvinnik reproductions.

To my eye, all the light, airy elegance of the historic set is lost - this looks more like a Staunton with thin stems. It's just not the same thing, is it? Or maybe it's just my imagination.

I don't care much about being very true to historical dimensions - I merely draw my inspiration from old photographs, but turning your own sets gives you the ability to precisely control each and every element of the piece. Even 0.5 mm of width makes a big difference in how the chess piece looks and feels in your hand. And being able to shape them yourself gives you that extra power of tweaking the piece design here and there until it "just feels right". Interestingly, sometimes chessmen look right, but don't feel right. And sometimes they don't look like much, but they feel great in your hands (E.g. soviet pieces are rather basic in their appearance, but boy, do they feel right).

 

So, with a little free time in the workshop this evening I've chucked a bubinga offcut into the lathe and had a go at turning the bishop from my dream '33 set. I like bishops. I like them a lot. They very often seem to define the chess set for me. They sit somewhere between kings, queens and pawns in their design, while rooks and knights are often shaped differently, but in a way that complements the rest of the set. If you turn a king or a queen first, you don't quite get a feel for the pawns. If you turn the pawns, you have no idea how the pieces will look & feel. The bishops seem to give you just the right amount of information about looks & feel.

 

Ok, ok, it needs some refinement, but this was just a quick draft to see if I like what comes out of it.

I like it a lot. The base is incredible - Very low & very wide. I get the feeling that the piece was made out of wax and it has melted over the first two steps of the base. The stem flows organically from the "melted" base, quickly reaches its narrowest point and then gradually expands to form the pedestal that holds the bishop's "head". I imagine that this piece must feel close to how the 1910 Vienna set feels. Slim straight stems on very wide bases - none of the chunky Staunton feel.

 

Here's a comparison between my takes on a soviet set (call it Soviet Club if you like - just a generic blend of typical soviet designs), F-B '33, Tal and Dubrovnik Minceta. The F-B '33 really stands out, doesn't it? Very bizarre design.

 

With a bit of luck I'll be getting some free time to start turning the actual chessmen, but for now it's just one Flohr-Botvinnik bishop. You've got to start somewhere, and so far I feel like I've cracked the secret "formula" of a '33 Flohr-Botvinnik on my first attempt. The bishop looks & feels strange, but it feels "right".

Hi, I believe this looks very close to the averbakh. @krames shared this post which got me to buy one. Love at first sight. Check out this #chess forum: Oldset - Averbakh Repro - https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/oldset-averbakh-repro via @chesscom

Oh btw, nice work on turning the bishops. Always admired you guys making your own set.

The Averbakh is a nice looking set. I bet it's great to play with. But it is substantially different to my eye. There are some similarities, and it seems to almost bridge the gap between the set in the photo above (shall we call it F-B '33 AF) and a typical soviet set shapes like the ones below. The stems are slim and the bases are compressed, but it doesn't quite have this melted wax effect, or the dendriform stem & pedestal shape.

 

There is a so-called Smyslov set that seems to be an exaggerated version of F-B '33 AF. Similar bases, similar stems.

 

You can see the design flow from Smyslov - to F-B '33 AF - to Averbakh - to Botvinnik II.

@M_Chavez I agree with your comments on style differences. There's a certain elegance to the set in the original post which hasn't been captured by these reproductions.

Should you succeed in pulling it off, I'd potentially be interested in buying your set (ideally unweighted)

Your bishop is close - I think the top ridge is slightly too pronounced and fat compared to the original. There's also more variance between the second and third ridge in the original. And perhaps the original has a slightly squatter base. You are close and very talented at turning pieces!

Thank you - you're reading my mind.

I pulled out the good stuff for the actual set (Indian Rosewood) and made a few tweaks to the first bishop on the fly. The top collar was put on a diet; the head was made longer and more egg-shaped; the base squished even lower (at the expense of the third step). Just need to repeat this 3 times now.

Don't think I'll ever be able to make turning these economically viable - I'm not a pro wood turner and take my time with them. Just spin 'em fast and poke 'em with something sharp until it looks right. Somebody skilled can probably do the same job in 1/10th of the time.

Why do you prefer unweighted? I like them as heavy as I can get. Don't think I'll be able to stuff these low bases with much lead, so the set will be lighter than others.

 

I think unweighted would be nice because as you mention, not much space for lead. And I feel such delicate pieces would have greater durability longevity (less risk of cracking) without weight. I can't imagine this being a blitz set, so I'd think unweighted would be nice. I am not an expert however.

Sometimes repro’s can be excellent - but in this instance the original, especially the knights are the length of the Flemington straight ahead. @M_Chavez - I admire your ability to turn pieces - I am about to start a turning course …. I’m looking forward to years ahead when I know more than where the in switch is located … hopefully I can make some basic soon. And maybe a set by 2025 - that’s my aim.

@felonet - with these particular pieces my fear is that the stems can warp & bend off central axis. The way I mount the pieces onto a chuck requires me to drill out the bases and drill a 4mm hole for a mounting screw right through the blanks. So not only are these stems rather slim, they are hollow inside . I have ordered some brass rod and I will be epoxying the rod into the stems to reinforce them.

Generally, reinforced wood is more stable than a solid wooden piece. E.g. traditional Spanish guitars often had the neck made up of a wooden blank sawn down the middle and glued back together - this made a more stable neck than using an unadulterated single blank. For weighting I pack the cavity inside the piece with lead shot and then drown it in epoxy - this leads to a very stable structure - a lot more stable and less liable to cracking than solid wood... With my first set I had an issue where the epoxy did not penetrate all the way through, and that resulted in a few pieces getting loose lead shot rattling inside them after my kids have bashed the pieces hard on the board a few times. I later corrected the issue by using larger shot pellets and poring the epoxy in two stages.

You can play with the weighting. I make the kings extra heavy - you know it's the King when you pick it up. Queens and bishops are lighter - they need to hop over the entire board without getting tired. Knights need some weight to keep the heavy-ish carved figures stable. I use denser woods though - this might not be a problem if using something like walnut or maple. Chunky rooks get a fair share of lead too - you're moving castle walls!

You'll know a lot more about turning than I do in day or two then!

Focus on learning about safety. H&S is critical when woodworking. The rest of turning skills might not be directly applicable to a chess set.

Do you have your own lathe, or are you going to borrow/use club space?

There's nothing difficult about turning chessmen - I think it's a very basic job by woodturning standards and is a lot easier than hollowing out cups or bowls or boxes. You also only need the most basic tools (apart from 3 parting tools that are cheaper & easier to buy, I made my own tools with carbide cutters).

Holding the work is tricky, but there's a smart way of doing it. You'll need a chuck (and a lathe that's able to take a chuck to begin with!). And you'll need to turn your own chuck attachment for holding the pieces.

I can take a few pics of the tools & the chuck if you want. You should be able to turn a more basic Soviet set in your first month or two - no need to wait until 2025. Especially if you focus on turning what you can turn instead of what you want to turn - so don't lose sleep over changing the design a bit to change your tools and ability rather than following the exact dimensions.

Also, mention your interest to your teacher - they might be able to make the course more applicable to turning chessmen, or making your own beading tooling instead of teaching you how to turn bowls and plates.

PS don't get me started on the knights... Unless I can find a highly skilled wood carver, they'll have to be significantly simplified - probably ripped off from another Soviet set.

The bishop now has a twin brother. I've messed up the collar when sanding and it was too late to do anything about it, so it looks taller and rounder. I can adjust the collar on the first bishop to match, but I think I'll just leave it as is. I'm not a cnc lathe after all.

I've also prototyped a rook. I'll need to ruminate on it for a while and see how I can improve it, but I'm reasonably happy with the way it turned out.

Thanks for taking the time to write all that info @M_Chavez.

I do not have a lathe and will be using club space and their equipment. They have amazing equipment and the club has some lovely examples of chessmen in the displays …. So someone’s done something in the past! It’s an 8 week course (4hrs per week) and the early lessons are all about safety and the focus is boxes and bowls but I have told them my want to make chess pieces, so I hope to get some advice and I also have a book about turning chessmen that contains plans for basic sets too.

I may get a lathe one day - pleasingly there are two excellent Australian lathe makers of some renown - so that’s nice to know. I am doing a course first to check that I like it and and have some ability with it - I love your optimism about being able to carve simple pieces soon but mate … I am a woodworking klutz… so beware - my ambition is way ahead of my skills.

Sounds like you're very serious about it!

I had only made a dozen chisel handles and one bowl before I had a go at my first chess set. So about 10 hours of turning experience Had no books on it and no teacher, but found one article online that explained the chucking arrangement (can't find it now unfortunately). A very basic old severely underpowered lathe and home-made tools. Just chucked an offcut and had a go at it. Was enough for a Soviet-style set. The same set-up was enough for a Dub set and now the F-B, so sounds like you'll have all that you need.

If somebody at the club has chess making experience, you've hit the jackpot! Try to pick their brains on:

- chucking options (mine is not the only way to skin the proverbial cat);

- making custom beading tools (if you ever want to get into really intricate Staunton designs);

- Using carbide-tipped tools [a very controversial topic among "proper" wood turners, but for small precision work I think they are much better suited than traditionally shaped hss tools].

- Making knight bases and attaching the knight carvings. I've only made one-piece knights so far, but you can turn a base and mount a separately carved figure on it too.

- Weighting

- Making mitre cuts (if you like them...I've tried it on mine, and not only is it extremely difficult to make a top quality set of cuts, but I found out that I prefer the cleaner look of pieces without cuts).

If, like me, you have limited interest interest in bowls & boxes, in most cases the course organisers will be delighted to try and help you with making alternative items. Bring a photo of a soviet set with some reference measurements with you and you'll have a couple rooks or bishop pair after your second lesson

This one, for example, is very easy to turn.

https://sovietchesssets.com/gallery/

Mid-1930s Botvinnik-Flohr II pieces

 

For finishing just mirror polish the pieces on a lathe, then apply 2-3 light coats of shellac (you'll need to make your own by mixing clean, unwaxed shellac flakes with methylated spirits, about 1:4 by weight).

 

Just a word of warning before you start - it's really addictive!

I'm now stuck until the postman delivers some olive blanks to me, so I can start turning the white pieces, but I've had a go at designing another rook. Tried to make it closer to the style of the bishops.

I will need to finish the bishops, kings & queens before I finalise the rook looks, but I'm tempted to go with the new option. Maybe increase the base diameter by 1mm.

Here's a little preview of the main pieces on a 55x55 square board.

Now need to decide what I'm doing with the knights and finalise the pawn design.

Still final polishing to do and still need to make the finials for K & Q.

Finials - whenever I get some free time.

The rooks were a bit of a challenge. I don't do mitre cuts on queens, rooks or bishops. It started off with my inability to do them well enough for my liking (making high quality identical cuts is hard enough, but making the cut surfaces match the lathe-polished turned surfaces is next to impossible, so they were standing out like a sore thumb) but I then realised I prefer the cleaner looks of the turned lines anyway, albeit it requires some design adjustments.

To make the non-cut rook tops more interesting I had to angle the top walls a bit (see the first prototype) which resulted in a rook that was too different in style to the rest of the set...

Here's what I've settled on. The rook on the right was the first attempt. Both designs feel great in the hand. I'll probably re-use this original design in another set.

PS yes, I've drifted a bit towards the "Smyslov" design and I've messed up the bases, so had to re-design them on the fly to make the set work well on 55x55 board.

Good thing mr MC brought back this thread, haven't seen it. 

Good stuff what you're doing there! I certainly dig soviet sets. It's just there is so many styles I like it's like Pandora box so I decided to get only one set that represents soviet style for me. It's a contemporary interpretation of Smyslov set made by mr Porat. Just like you said, in particular the dendriform shape of the stems it's what made this set looks very attractive. The icing on the cake about this set it's the Novgorod blepping knight so my itch for soviet sets it's gone

Oh yeah, I had a little set back so I got this one, nothing extraordinary just a common Valdai Nobles set. It's simple yet also attractive in my eyes.