Category: Soviet Style Sets

Originally classified “Grandmaster 2” as one of four “Grandmaster” sets by Portuguese collector and historian Arlindo Vieira, the “Bronstein” name was added by American collector Mike John Ladzinski based on a 1968 photo of Bronstein and Tal playing with such pieces.

The GM2 sets were mass produced to meet an immense demand for sets among the vast chess-playing Soviet public. Shakhmaty v SSSR, 9/1962, at 278-279. Their design is quintessentially Soviet. It incorporates large, bulbous bases, curving up to concave stems, which trumpet into the pedestals upon which the crowns and miters perch. The bulbous bases are echoed in the large, rounded bases of the king’s crown and bishop’s onion-shaped miter, which itself reflects the shape of orthodox church domes. Large proletarian pawns reflect the importance of the working class to socialist ideology. CV-shaped Knights are carved in the distinct manner of the sixties. The following 1950s-early 1960s version has 105 mm kings and original dark blue cloth bottoms.

By 1967, the GM2 sets, manufactured in the Perkhushkovaya Factory of Cultural Goods in Moscow, began to sport plastic finials. Here is a set made in 1967 from the collection of Eduardo Bauza, together with its original cardboard box and sales receipt. Consistent with Soviet practice, the set lacks a distinct name, and is described by the box and receipt only as “Tournament Chess,” that is, a set suitable for tournament play.

By 1967 the set also saw some variation in the finials atop the kings. GM2 pieces with plastic, spike-shaped finials were used in the 1967 USSR Championship in Kharkiv, as shown by a photo of Uri Sakharov playing Lev Alburt in that event.

Here are pieces similar to those in the Sakharov photo.

By the 1970s, the pieces were slathered unevenly in taffy apple varnish. Here are some photos of the sets in use in the seventies and eighties.

Here is a set from the seventies. It is slathered in uneven, taffy apple varnish. The knights are all wooden but the wooden finials have been replaced with plastic ones.

Some subtle changes to the design are evident. For example, the king of the 1970s set is taller, but with a narrower and less bulbous base. Its stem is shorter, but its crown is taller.

The c. 1970s knight, however, is shorter and slimmer, its carving lacking details like the mane and the bit-hole found in the mouth of the c. 1960 knight. The curves of the c. 1970s knight are cruder, less smooth than those of the earlier knight.

By the 1980s, this “Tournament Chess” had been given a numerical designation “No. 5” to distinguish it from other sets also generically described as tournament sets. The label from the inside of a box of a 1985 set refers to it as “Wooden Tournament No. 5.”

As we will see with other mass-produced sets, production eventually was simplified with the use of less expensive plastic knights. Here is an example from the collection of collector John Moyes illustrating the plastic knight.

The Grandmaster 2 Bronstein chess set served Soviet chess for decades. It was mass produced for a chess-playing public in need of thousands and thousands of sets. Its curvaceous design was quintessentially Soviet, even as it evolved to incorporate plastic parts and discard some detail in an effort to economize its production and make it more accessible to a Soviet public hungry for playing sets.

Today, I want to focus on one narrow topic raised by a contributor to Shakmatnyye Kollektsionery: what is a Grandmaster set and what are the differences between the different types of Grandmaster sets mentioned by collectors?

A Grandmaster, or Grossmeister set is most generally a set that was used at the highest levels of Soviet chess, that is, by Grandmasters. Soviet sets typically did not have names, just as most Soviet consumer products did not have brand names. Instead, chess sets were described by functional categories.

Grandmaster sets were used by grandmasters. Tournament sets were for use generally in tournaments. Yunost sets were for students and youth. In Xadrez Memoria, Arlindo describes these GM, or Grandmaster, sets as:

Soviet pieces characteristic of many Clubs, competitions and even simple chess lovers that in a park, or Garden, anywhere in the former Soviet Union used to use them. Almost always these pieces were made with the respective folding board that also served as a box where they were kept (such “anemic” trays of 4.5 – 5cm square for pieces with a King base with 3.5-4 cm!… All of these pieces are very reasonable in size, with the KINGS walking 10-11 cm high… [T]hey are very different sets from each other and have been used in different times… .

Xadrez Memoria, 4 December 2012.

Vieira designates each type of Grandmaster set with a number, 1-4, and dedicates one sub-section of his video to each GM type. He dates the GM1 in the seventies and eighties; the GM2 in the sixties through the eighties; the GM3 goes undated in both the video and the blog; The GM4 is undated, but he describes it as “the last version of this competitive set,” and shows it in use in the mid-eighties. The photographic record provides evidence that each of the four types indeed were used at the highest levels of Soviet Chess.

Within each GM category, there were a number of different sets sharing the same basic style. Some of the differences can be attributed to when or where they were produced, others by the intended audience. Thus each style had better made and finished types that were used at the high levels, and simplified versions that were mass marketed to the millions who played chess. Over the course of four articles, we will examine each of Arlindo’s four types.

Grandmaster 1 Pieces

Figures 1 and 2 present an example of a GM1 set from the 1960s. They are obviously well-used, not surprising insofar as Vieira describes the GM1 to have been “very popular in chess clubs.” In some ways, this set represents the end product of Soviet design. Reminiscent of a simplified BFII design, the GM1 incorporated what I call the Voronezh Curve, extending up from the base, forming a stem concave in shape, which blossoms out to form the pedestal upon which the piece signifiers rest.

The Royals’ crowns are bounded by a simple band, rather than the three-piece (two collars and a connecting area), with a simple trapezoidal shape, slightly domed at the top of the king. The coronets, miters, and turrets all lack details. The bishop’s miter has simplified the common Soviet onion dome to the shape of a tear. The knight is basically a slab with cuts across the vertical plane, and carvings cut into the wood. Its shape is an almost an exaggeration of the standard Soviet CV shape. All of the simplifications retain their Soviet character while facilitating mass production of the pieces. It is a simple design, perfect for mass production. The stem rises almost seamlessly from the base, forming a concave curve that trumpets out to serve as a pedestal, upon which the piece signifier–crown, coronet, miter, or ball–rests. The finials atop the king and queen are made of wood. In later versions, they are made of plastic. The queen’s coronet bears no crenellations. The knights are quite simple, comprising a slab with two angular cuts signifying the mane. The knight’s back forms a simple C-Curve, whereas the chest is cut to an angular V. The back of the ears continue the upward line of the back. The bishop’s miter is a simple tear-shape without a cut. The rook’s turret lacks merlons.

According to St. Petersburg Collector Sergey Kovalenko, many of these sets were made in Oredezh settlement, Luga district, Leningrad region.

Sergey has compiled a history of chess set production in Oredezh/Luga:

GM1 chessmen. Oredezhsky DOZ. Oredezh settlement, Luga district, Leningrad region.

The factory produced chess sets (board and pieces), as well as chess boards and tables separately. Boards of at least four sizes – 20×20 cm, 30×30 cm, 40×40 cm, 45 x45 cm.

“GM1″ was produced in at least three sizes– for a board of 30cm, 40cm and 45cm.

From about 1960 to 1966, white figures and boards were covered with a red-brown varnish (most likely based on alcohol), from about 1967 they switched to a colorless nitrocellulose varnish.

In the 1970s, the finals began to be made plastic. In the “best” years, in the mid-70s, [the] factory produced up to 13,000 thousand sets per month.

Chain of renaming.

The artel “УтильПром/Utilprom” (in some sources “Утиль/Util”) was established in 1948.

In 1953 it was renamed “Промвторсырье/Promvtorsyrye” (in some sources “Промвторспрос/Promvtorspros”).

In 1957, it was renamed the
“Ореджская промыслово кооперативная артель/Oredezh Promislovo-Kooperativny Artel”…

In 1960 was reorganized into the “Оредежский ДОЗ/ Oredezhsky DOZ.

The Oredezhsky DOZ existed with this name until April 1970, when the Oredezh and Luga plants were merged into “Лужский ДОК/Luzhsky DOK”.

In 1982, it was renamed “Лужский ЛДОК/Luzhsky LDOK.”

“Лужский ДОЗ/Luzhsky LDOK” Luga city, Leningrad region, has its own history.

In 1946, the “Лужский Мебельщик/ Luzhsky mebelschik” artel was established.

In 1956 it was renamed the “Лужская Мебельная фабрика / Luga Furniture Factory.”

In 1962 it was renamed the “Лужский ДОЗ/Luzhsky DOZ.” …

Source: Shakhmatnyee Kollektsionery 12 November 2021.

Figure 4 below shows a stamp found inside the board of a first quality set produced in 1968 in the Oredezh Wood Processing Factory, 11 Lenin Street, in Leningrad Oblast. The set included both the pieces and Board No. 4, as both are described and their product numbers given. The finials are all wood. The board’s squares are 4mm x 45mm.

The next photo, Figure 5, gives us a rare look inside a Soviet chess factory. It depicts a chess assembler foreman inspecting GM1 pieces in the Oredezh Wood Processing Factory.

As Sergey described, the Orodezh Factory changed merged into to Luga, and began branding its sets with Luga’s distinctive round trademark, seen on the box in Figure 6. It is a late model set with all plastic finials.

Figure 7 depicts the GM1 design in an analysis-sized set with kings of 76 mm. The finials are wooden, and the knights of an early pattern. They are consistent with those Sergey described as being for a 30 mm No. 3 board.

According to Arlindo Vieira, smaller sets like these were “very popular in schools and clubs, amateur tournaments.” It is perhaps a stretch to use a classification he coined to denote sets used by grandmasters in high level tournaments to describe a miniature set, but I use it to reference the design of the pieces rather than who used them.

As Sergey noted, the plant moved from red/brown varnish to a clear coat in 1967. Here are the pieces from the 1968 set shown in Figure 4.

As of this update, collector and graphic designer Eva Silvertant is working on a typology of GM1 knights. She has identified two other styles of GM1 knights. The first is similar to those shown in Figures 1, 2, 7, 9, and 10 from the Orodezh/Luga factory.

The knights in this set appear to be very similar to those found in GM2 sets manufactured by the Perkhushkovskaya Factory of Cultural Goods, which suggests that these GM1 variants were produced there. More research is needed.

A second variant Eva has brought to our attention is what she aptly dubs the “Fox Head” Knights. She states that they were made by Luzsky Woodworking Enterprise, which Sergey had identified as the 1972 successor to Oredezhsky DOZ, renamed to essentially Eva’s form in 1982. Interestingly, these Fox Head knights appear similar to those Arlindo Vieira first posted in 2012. At this point, I am unaware of any cardboard boxes with identifying information relating to this variant.

GM1 Wolf-Ear Variant

One interesting variation of the basic GM1 design, seen in Figures 8 and 9 below, has been called the “Wolf Ear” or “Dropjaw” set in reference to its unique knights with their dropped jaws and their wolf-like ears. The knight’s wolf-like ears echo the sharp peak of the cleric’s tear-shaped miter. The rook’s lines also have been exaggerated over those of the standard GM1.

The king stands 103 mm tall with a good-sized base of 45 mm. Lightly weighted. Like other GM1 sets, the Wolf Eared ones came in a variety of sizes. Steven Kong’s collection includes one with 112 mm kings. Ribnar Mazumdar’s collection also includes a specimen with 112 mm kings.

The Wolf-Ear set retains the general shape of the standard GM1, but is heightened and widened, the severity of the stem’s curve is reduced, the knight’s ears and mouth have been exaggerated, the king’s crown has been given a larger bulge on top, the king’s and queen’s pedestals have been heightened, the connection between pedestal and crown has been increased on the royals, the king’s and queen’s finials have been shortened and reduced in diameter respectively, and the sides of the rook’s turret have been given a curve.

One significant problem with the Wolf-Ear set is that the kings and queens are difficult to distinguish. In fact, the Wolf-Ear queen looks very much like the king in other Soviet sets as well, compounding the problem. Another confusing design element is that the stem of the queen is longer than that of the king, connoting that she, not her liege, is the most important piece. Moreover, the unusual length of her stem results in her pedestal being above the kings, destroying the descending line of the pedestals that harmonizes the sight of the pieces on their initial squares and further confuses the connotation of value.

According to Sergey Kovalenko, the Wolf-Ear sets were manufactured in a correctional colony, Institution OI 92/9 in Makhachkala, DASSR (Dagestan). The colony later received the designation IK-2. The sets accompanied by the following labels were made in the 1980s.

Perhaps the unique profile of the Wolf-Ear knights derives from the Silver Wolf in the flag of the Avar Khanate of Dagestan.

GM1 Conclusion

This concludes our survey of Grandmaster 1 chess pieces. Next we will turn to another very Soviet design, the Grandmaster 2 pieces, sometimes called the Bronstein pieces owing to a photo of Bronstein and Tal playing with them.

Updated 9 June 2022, 7 July 2022, 7 March 2025.

These impressive chess pieces are named after World Champion Vasily Smyslov (1921-2010), who is seen as a young man in a rare photo playing with a set of this design and size. Berlin artist and collector Porat Jacobson calls these pieces “revolutionary” because they reject the neoclassical column structure of Staunton and late Tsarist stems, replacing them with a trumpeted, dendriformic stem echoing modernist column designs.

Porat Jacobson and I also believe Smyslov pieces appear in a 1927 photo of a game between Botvinnik and Panchenko.

What really sets these pieces apart are their trumpeted stems, which begin narrow at the base and widen as they rise, flaring at the top where they meet the pedestals upon which the King, Queen, Bishop, and Pawn signifiers rest. Unlike the Botvinnik-Flohr II and Voronezh designs, where the pedestals are a seamless continuation of the top of the stem’s concave curve, here they are distinct structural parts, delineated by a discernable seam.

Visually, the royals and cleric signifiers rest within inverted isosceles triangles whose tips rest on the wide bases. Somehow the set still manages to convey an appearance of stability, perhaps due to the wide bases. The queen wears a unique, large globe-shaped finial perched on a stem above her coronet.

The bishops wear massive miters topped with discs, perhaps a truncated form of globus cruciger as seen in the Laughing Knight pieces. Similar discs or spheroids sit atop the Baku clerics as well. The kings of my set are 11 cm tall with a base of 4 cm, and the pieces are reasonably well-weighted.

The design appears in other sizes and finishes. Here is a set from the Steven Kong collection with 9.5 cm kings. The “White” pieces are finished in red.

Here is an undated photograph of what appears to be the 9.5 cm. version in action.

The set’s counterintuitive stems remind me of the “dendriform” columns of the S.C. Johnson Administration Building in Racine, Wisconsin designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and opened in 1939. Those columns are only 9 inches in diameter at their base, but blossom to 18.5 feet in diameter at the top, and support ten times the structural load requirement.

Dendriform columns were no stranger to Soviet design of the 1930s. They can be found in the Kropotkinskaya metro station in Moscow, completed in 1935 and designed by Alexey Dushkin and Ya. Likhtenberg. The station received international recognition and received the Stalin Prize for architecture and construction.

The Smyslov’s trumpeted, dendriformic stem seems to have appeared by at least 1927, seven years before the the convex stem/pedestal structure appeared in the Botvinnik Flohr II design. It’s not a stretch to think these pieces were a major step towards the structure that represents a major element of Soviet chess piece design.

The Smyslov’s dendriformic stem seems to appear in photos of the set used in the 1949 Moscow Championship, acquiring the name “Averbakh Set” by virtue of a photo of Yuri Averbakh playing with them in that event, and sets of the 1950s that seem to evolve or derive from the 1949 set. In this way the revolutionary elements of the Smyslov design have enjoyed a long and impactful life.

The state-sanctioned program of Political Chess begun by Alexander Ilyin-Genevsky and elaborated by Nikolai Krylenko was but one of several parallel projects aimed to promote socialism in the fledgling Soviet Union. Another such effort was Soviet Constructivism and its VKhUTEMAS Institute, an acronym for Vysshie Khudozhestvenno-Tekhnicheskie Masterskie (Higher State Artistic and Technical Studios), founded in 1920 by the merger of the Moscow School of Painting, Sculpture and Architecture and the Stroganov School of Applied Arts. Like the Bauhaus, it combined industry, architecture, design, and art under one roof. Among its famous faculty were Konstantin Melnikov (architect), Aleksandra Ekser (“color in space”), Alexander Rodchenko (construction), Nadezhda Udaltsova (“volume in space”), Varvara Stepanova (textiles), and Alexei Gan (graphic design). In Stepanova’s words, the Institute’s goal was to devise “methods for a conscious awareness of the demands imposed on us by new social conditions.” “Art is dead!” proclaimed Gan, “There is no room for it in the human work apparatus. Work, technique and organization!” J. Willette, Constructivism and the Avant Garde (2020).

According to art historian Laura Hillegas, “The Constructivists sought to influence architecture, design, fashion, and all mass-produced objects. In place of painterly concerns with composition, Constructivists were interested in construction. Rather than emerging from an expressive impulse or an academic tradition, art was to be built.” Constructivism Brought the Russian Revolution to the Art World. Constructivist design employed pure geometric forms, linearity, symmetry, repetition, simple, sans-serif fonts, the dominance of red and black, and photomontage. FINSA, What is Russian Constructivism?

Many of these elements can be seen in El Lissitzky’s famous poster, Reds into Whites (1919):

Constructivist elements abound in graphic art associated with Soviet chess of the 1920s and 1930s. Here is the cover of a popular chess book from 1925.

There are no known examples of a purely Constructivist Soviet chess set, but Rodchenko designed a chess table in 1925 for a Worker’s Club:

It then should come as no surprise to find Constructivist elements appearing in Soviet chess set design. The constructivist influence is heavy in these small, unweighted pieces likely of the 1930s, whose kings stand a mere 63 mm tall.

The bishops combine a sphere and a cone. The pawn is a sphere resting upon a stem that flows organically from the disc-shaped base unobstructed by a collar. The royals share a thick, hyperbolic, dendraformic stem, noticeably narrower at the bottom than at the top in defiance of neoclassical notions of “common sense,” where the bottoms of columns are “naturally” wider than their tops. The geometry of the royals’ stems is echoed in the dendraformic structure of the rook. “Common sense” is literally stood upon its head.

The royals’ pedestals echo the form of the pawn’s base, their crowns attached by a double-collared connector. The king’s crown is composed of triangles and topped with a bullet-shaped finial. The queen’s crown inverts and repeats the pawn base structure, and is topped by a sphere. The only Staunton elements evident are the collared royal connectors and the relative sizes of the pieces.

Pieces in this Constructivist-influenced design were made in at least two sizes. Here is the 65 mm king version compared side-by-side with a larger 85 mm version.

The pieces of this set bear a remarkable resemblance to those found in a Constructivist flyer for the well-known 1925 Soviet film Chess Fever, starring World Champion Jose Raul Capablanca and other participants of the 1925 First Moscow International Chess Tournament, itself a manifestation of the Soviets’ program of Political Chess. The film, with English subtitles, can be viewed in its entirety here.

The pieces also appear in the photographic record from the 1930s. Here is a photo found by collector Sergey Kovalenko of Grandmaster Emeritus Vladimir Alatortsev (1909-1987) playing in a simultaneous exhibition with what seems to be the larger version of the set in the foreground.

My specimen of this design came inside a small wooden board/box similar to that appearing in the Alatortsev photo. The coordinates were added by a prior owner.

The inside of the box bears a stamp indicating that it was manufactured by the Moscow State Toy Factory, with a Moscow street address.

It’s from the Chess Fever flyer and Alatortsev photo that I date the set.

Many other Soviet sets bore Constructivist influences. I’ve already discussed the impact of modernism on the Botvinnik-Flohr II design here. It is a theme to which we will return.