---

1960 Netherlands v Great Britain, 8-9 October 1960, Vlissingen

Bd	Netherlands	Rd 1	Rd 2	Great Britain
1b	Jan Hein Donner	½-½	½-½	Jonathan Penrose
2w	Hans Bouwmeester	½-½	½-½	C Hugh O'D Alexander
3b	Theo D van Scheltinga	0-1	½-½	Peter H Clarke
4w	Nicolaas Cortlever	1-0	½-½	Leonard W Barden
5b	Haije Kramer	½-½	½-½	Robert G Wade
6w	Carel B van den Berg	1-0	1-0	P Stuart Milner-Barry
7b	Johan Teunis Barendregt	1-0	1-0	Kenneth W Lloyd
8w	Eduard Spanjaard	0-1	½-½	Denis Victor Mardle
9b	Christian (Kick) Langeweg	0-1	1-0	Bernard Cafferty
10w	Constant Orbaan	0-1	0-1	John E Littlewood
	8-9 October 1960	4½-5½	6-4
	Vlissingen	10½-9½
	Hendrika G Timmer	0-1	1-0	Elaine Pritchard

BCM, November 1960, ppn 309-311

The Anglo-Dutch Match

By P. H. CLARKE

MATCHES between England and Holland are traditional; their beginnings are to be found half a century ago, and since then the two countries have met each other frequently, though not always regularly. In 1958, after a break of some years, the series was restarted in Flushing [Vlissingen], and it now appears firmly established as an annual event. This year the teams again met at Flushing, and after a hard struggle Holland won 10½-9½.

Readers may remember that at Cheltenham last year the England team failed to win a single game and that as a result there was some criticism of the players—and not unjustifiably, perhaps—for their lack of enterprise. Though I cannot report a general victory, I can say that it was not for want of effort this time. On Friday, October 7th, the team, under the non-playing captaincy of Mr. Soanes, Chairman of the British Chess Federation, left for Holland. We were in good spirits and hopeful of wiping out the bitter memories of the year before. The news that the Dutch were without Dr. Euwe and Prins increased our hopes and made up for the fact that Golombek and Haygarth were missing from our side. At 3.30 p.m. on the Saturday, after a short opening ceremony, play began.

Before an hour had gone by there were distinct signs of a rising in our favour: while one or two players were experiencing difficulties, the majority were comfortably placed and, indeed, on three boards we looked well set for victory; Penrose was working up the sort of powerful King's side attack he loves to play; Cafferty had a clear positional advantage in a simplified position; and I had acquired a Queen for Rook and Bishop after van Scheltinga had amusingly built his own trap and fallen into it.

As the games progressed so the overall picture grew still more favourable for us, and this was soon reflected in the results themselves. The first blow was struck by Mardle: a couple of weak moves by Spanjaard let him in with a vicious attack, and it was all over in a few moments. Not long afterwards Wade reached a drawn ending from a position which had at one time been difficult for him, and Littlewood, who had played the whole game in sharp and aggressive style, drove home a mating attack with the aid of a Rook sacrifice. Next to finish was the game on Board 2, where Alexander succeeded in neutralizing all White's threats and came down to an equal ending.

In the last hour's play four more games ended decisively, but without changing the margin of 2 points between the teams. Increasing pressure at last broke my opponent's resistance, and to make up for this Barendregt overcame Lloyd, who seemed to have been a little overawed by the occasion—it was his first game for England. Cafferty had in the meantime won a pawn, but at the cost of allowing his opponent two Bishops. Urged on by his captain and aided by Langeweg's errors, he finally notched the full point. The van den Berg-Milner-Barry encounter was decided in the last few minutes of the session with both players very short of time. Having had an excellent position for most of the time, the British master lost a pawn by an oversight and this proved fatal. Thus at the end of the first session with the games on Boards 1 and 4 adjourned, the score stood at 5-3 in our favour. This was satisfactory enough, but it might have been still better. Penrose had mishandled a winning ending when in time-trouble, and though at the adjournment his position was still the better, Donner had good chances of a draw. Barden, on the other hand, had been on the defensive throughout the game and had done well to survive as long as he had.

At 10p.m. these two games were resumed. The course of play soon showed us that our advantage was going to be reduced to a minimum. Cortlever had sealed a very fine move and the only one to win; he conducted the Rook and pawn ending with great accuracy and gave Barden not the slightest chance. Penrose's attempts too were met by exact play. Although two pawns down Donner was able to hold the draw by making use of the old theme of Bishop and Rook's pawn of the wrong colour. We had won the round by a single point, which meant there was everything to play for the following day.

Here I must add that there were also two ladies taking part in the match, Mrs. Pritchard for us and Mrs. Timmer for Holland. This was breaking new ground in the history of the event. For the purposes of the score it had been agreed that their games would not count—unless the match was drawn; in that case the ladies would have their usual last word. In the first game Mrs. Pritchard won, having driven the black King out into the middle of the board; where it succumbed.

When the second round began two years ago we led by 3 points and were still defeated in the end. Those of us who had experienced that disappointment saw no reason why it should happen a second time, yet it did, if to a much lesser degree. I think most of us believed that we would win, and, in fact, we were unlucky not to.

The early play gave no indication of a change of fortune. It was tense and delicately balanced, but not unfavourable to us. The first games over were on Boards 4 and 5—fairly short and evenly contested draws. Then came a win for us: Littlewood again outplayed his opponent tactically, finishing off the game with a fine combination. So we were 2 points up again. Nevertheless, the situation was still critical; in three or four games we were under pressure and to offset this only Milner-Barry and Mardle had the upper hand. What was more, the fact that Mrs. Pritchard was losing this time meant that we could not even fall back on a 10-10 result, as then the elimination rule would work against us (Littlewood's points would be lost).

As the fifth hour's play commenced, it seemed that we would just make it—wins from Boards 6 and 8, draws on Boards 2 and 3. The two latter were not long in coming, van Scheltinga had allowed me to escape from a nasty situation in the opening by giving up the exchange for a pawn and a strong and active position; both of us then made preparations for our respective break-throughs only to reach a point where neither could get any further. Alexander and Bouwmeester had an interesting struggle in which both came near to winning before reaching a drawn Knight and pawn ending.

Two up with five to go; the last and fateful phase of the match commences. While Mardle is picking up pawns in the ending, all the other games come to a climax in time-scrambles. First of all Lloyd loses a game which had looked bad for a long time; and to all intents and purposes Cafferty is lost too, having had to surrender much material in return for a few innocuous pawns. And with Penrose the exchange down and apparently finished, everything depends on Milner-Barry. But all is well; beautiful attacking play had brought him an overwhelming position, and van den Berg is in acute time-trouble too. Then drama and tragedy: Milner-Barry complicates instead of simplifying; pressed for time himself, he lets the win slip through his fingers; in its place there is suddenly a loss, and he resigns. In these few minutes the match had swung irretrievably away from us. There was little enthusiasm to watch the last games. Mardle's win, which certainly must have been there, disappeared without anyone knowing quite how, and finally Donner found that victory had somehow eluded him too. So the Dutch scraped home by the narrowest possible margin and thereby retained the silver challenge trophy for another year.

Though it is very disappointing to get so near and still fail, I am sure we need have no regrets about this match. The morale of the team was good, and as individuals each played his hardest. The top boards held their own and can go on to [the] Leipzig [Olympiad] without any worries. On Boards 6 and 7 we went down heavily: Milner-Barry just had no luck at all, and I feel that Lloyd was rather sacrificed to enable the bottom boards to score, which, of course, they did. Littlewood was a big success; he has a forceful, active style and a sharp eye for tactics. Possibly he overdoes it sometimes and takes too many risks, but stronger opposition would probably cure him of this. He could prove a real asset to the team.

It is almost superfluous to mention the friendly atmosphere and the excellent conditions in which the match was played. Everything ran smoothly, and we were treated right royally by our Dutch hosts. We look forward to their visit to Cheltenham next year, when perhaps we can at last defeat them.

---

CHESS, 21 October 1960, Vol.26/373, ppn 45-46, 50

ENGLAND v HOLLAND by B. Cafferty

For the first time, a semi-official ladies' match went on alongside: Mrs. E. Pritchard and Mrs. Timmer (Holland) each beat each other once. After the match, B.C.F. players bound for [the 1960] Leipzig [Olympiad] were guests of the Dutch for several days, giving simultaneous displays etc.

Played at the welfare canteen of "de Schelde" shipping company, Flushing [Vlissingen], Oct. 8th and 9th.

So England lost again. This is the fifth Dutch win in a row; the overall score now stands at seven Dutch wins, three English wins and two draws from the twelve encounters. It was a closer thing than last year and there were some encouraging features for us in the fine play of Littlewood and Mardle on the lower boards. Euwe was not playing. He is always a tower of strength not only just as a player but also as an encouragement to the other Dutchmen, so his absence must have given us a better chance than usual, and so it turned out in the first round. First of all, Van Scheltinga was guilty of unusual carelessness in losing his queen for rook and bishop !n only eight moves, all the more incomprehensible in that, to judge from the speed of play, he seemed much more familiar than Clarke with the line of play chosen.

I P—QB4 N—KB3 2 N—KB3 P—K3 3 P—KN3 P—Q4 4 B—N2 P—B3 5 P—N3 P-QR4 6 0-0 P-R5 7 B—QR3 PxNP 8 PxNP QN—Q2? 9 B—K7 RxR 10 BxQ.

Although the game lasted nearly another four hours the result was never in doubt. Then Mardle from a double-edged position crashed through on the king's side fo record the first result after three and a half hours' play.

Spanjaard v Mardle: 1 P—Q4 N—KB3 2 P-QB4 P—B4 3 P—Q5 P—KN3 4 N-QB3 B—N2 5 P-K4 P-Q3 6 B-N5 P-KR3 7 B—Q2 0—0 8 Q—B1 K-R2 9 B-Q3 P-K3 10 KN-K2 PxP 11 BPxP QN—Q2 12 P-B4 R—Kl 12 0—0 P—B5! 14 B—B2 N—B4 15 N-N3 N—N5 16 P—KR3 B—Q5ch 17 K—Rl N—B7ch 18 K-R2 Q—R5 19 QN—K2 BxRP 20 NxB N—N5ch Resigns.

Finally Littlewood got just the sort of position he likes with a piece concentration against the enemy king culminating in a rook and knight sacrifice to mate.

Orbaan v Littlewood: I P—K4 P—K4 2 N-KB3 N—QB3 3 B-N5 P-B4 4 P-Q3 N—B3 5 N-B3 P—Q3 6 0-0 B-K2 7 P-QR3 0—0 8 B—QB4ch K—Rl 9 N-KN5 Q—Kl 10 N-K6 BxN II BxB PxP 12 PxP N—Q5 13 B-R2? (13 8-QB4!) 13. . .Q-N3 14 P—B3 N—R4 15 K—Rl? (15 P—B4!)

15 . . . B—N4 16 BxB QxB 17 N—K2 R-B3 (This allows subsequent counter-play in the centre. Simply 17. . .NxN and 18. . .N—B5 gives an advantage.) 18 NxN PxN 19 QxP R-R3 20 KR—Kl R—KB I 21 QR—Ql (with back row mating threats after his next) 21. . .Q—R5 22 P—K5! N—N6ch 23 K—Nl QxPch 24 K—B2 PxP! (24.. .N—B4I?) 25 RxP? (25 Q-N4I then if 25. . .R—KN3 26 Q—R3 would prolong the game into an ending) 25. . . R-KN3 26 R-Q2 N-K5ch! 27 RxN RxNP ch 28 K—K3 RxPch! and mate next move.

However, now the steady pressure of the Dutch began to tell. Lloyd, playing somewhat high for his first such match, employed the rather backward opening system which he used with such good effect in the Championship. Barendregt played perfectly against it, pressing White back to the first three ranks and then successfully breaking through on the queen's side.

Barden just managed to get through time difficulties, but his already poor position had by then deteriorated into a lost rook and pawn ending.

However, Wade by ingenious play got out of difficulties and Alexander too neutralized strong enemy threats. Meanwhile Penrose had been making all the running against Donner's inferior opening system, but missed a difficult win just before the adjournment, and found the B and 4 P's versus B and 3 endgame drawn on resumption.

Milner Barry in an even position slipped gradually in the last hour of play, but this was compensated for by Langeweg's transposition into the wrong type of ending followed by a blunder losing a piece in time pressure.

Thus with a minimal English lead the second round was fought out with great tension in the air. England seemed to make a good start as no-one got a bad opening (always a risk against the well-prepared Dutchmen). Wade soon drew in 19 moves, followed by Barden in 17. The latter draw exemplified a feature typical of Barden's play. He seemed happy when he got his opponent into a prepared line but when by dint of hard thought Cortlever kept the game on an almost even keel Barden agreed a draw. Then things began to slip. Penrose and Lloyd came under strong pressure, Clarke lost the exchange for a pawn and several other positions became too difficult to assess. On such occasions with the players deep in thought and obviously uncertain, the tension is at its greatest. Non-playing match captain V. J. Soanes remarked that he felt as if he had been run over by a steam roller, and the players themselves find it hard too to avoid worrying about games other than their own.

Once again relief came from the bottom board where Littlewood played an even better game than the day before. No wonder his combination earned for him the name Little-Tal!

1 P—K4 P—QB4 2 N—KB3 P—K3 3 P—Q4 PxP 4 NxP N-KB3 5 B—Q3 N-B3 6 B-K3 P-Q4 7 N-Q2 B-K2 8 0-0 0-B2 9 N-N5 Q—N1 10 P—KB4 PxP 11 NxKP P-QR3 12 N(N5)-B3 0—0 13 Q—B3 Q-B2 14 0-R3 NxN 15 NxN P—B4 16 N—N5 BxN 17 PxB N—K2 18 P—KN4! N—N3? 19 QR—K1 B-Q2 20 PxP PxP 21 B—Q4 P—B5 (very tempting but brilliantly refuted) 22 R—K7 NxR 23 QxPch K—B2 24 QxPch K—Kl 25 B—KN6ch NxB 26 QxNch K—Q1 (26. . .K—K2 27 R-K1 ch wins) 27 B—N6! (the point very difficult to see at the start) 27. . .P—B6 28 Q—Q6! QxBch 29 QxQch K-K2 30 Q -N4ch K-K1 31 R-K1ch K—B2 32 R-K7ch Resigns.

Clarke held his game to a draw, however, and Alexander also drew after many vicissitudes, while Donner most surprisingly made up for Penrose's missed win of the first round. [diagram - see viewer] Donner now played 1 BxB KxB 2 R—QB1 with a strong game—pawn up, weak pawns at QR3, K5; pin on QB file. Penrose soon had to give up the exchange but found (or was given) unexpected chances and Donner finally conceded the draw. Yet in the diagram Donner had a move which Penrose intended to answer by resigning! Can you find it? (see foot of this page).

An incorrect choice of a pawn win in the early middle game left me with a lost game despite fishing in troubled waters in a time scramble.

However, the two great tragedies for England happened in the last half hour of the session. First Mardle missed a win in this position. [see viewer]

Now he went 30 PxP but after 30. . .N—N1 31 N—Q6 N-B3 32 N-B4 N-N5! 33 NxP P—B3 34 N—B4 NxP couldn't win with the extra pawn.

Instead 30 NxP NxN 31 PxN K-Q2 (the main line) 32 P—B4! P-B3 (or 32. . .PxP 33 P—Q4 and wins by bringing up his king) 33 PxP PxP 34 P-Q4 PxP 35 P—K5! wins as the two pawns protect each other.

Even worse was Milner-Barry's collapse at the end.

Milner-Barry v van den Berg: 1 P—K4 P—QB4 2 P—QB3 N—KB3 3 P—K5 N-Q4 4 P-Q4 PxP 5 B-QB4 N-N3 6 B—N3 P-Q3 7 N-B3 N—B3 8 KPxP PxBP 9 NxP PxP (van den Berg thought about an hour over this recapture. If 9. . .QxP 10 QxQ PxQ 11 N—QN5 with a persistent plus) 10 N—KN5 P—Q4 11 0—0 B-K2 12 Q-R5 P-KN3 13 Q—R6 B—B1 14 R-K1ch N-K2 15 Q—R4 B-N2 16 B—K3 P—KR3 17 BxN PxB 18 NxP! PxN 19 Q-N3! B—K3 20 RxB? (Milner-Barry now had about twenty minutes, van den Berg two for the remaining twenty moves. The build up and combination so far have been a vintage Milner-Barry, but now the English veteran of these matches, as in the first round, seemed more nervous than his opponent in this tense situation. Here simply 20 N—B7ch K—B1 21 BxB recovers the piece while preventing both . . N—KB4 and . . .R—QB1 and wins easily.) 20 . .PxR 21 N—B7ch K—B2 22 R—Q1? (22 NxP was the correct continuation of the attack) 22. . .QxRch! 23 BxQ N—B4 24 Q-N3 N-Q5 25 Q—B4 QR—QB1 26 B-B3 (even here 26 B—N4 and if 26. KR—K1 27 NxR RxQ 28 N—Q6ch and 29 NxR would have held the draw in hand) 26...B—K4 Resigns.

So the match ended in the closest possible win for Holland. Traditional Dutch hospitality sweetened the pill.

*That missed win: B—N4, forcing a winning check on the back rank.

---

Record of GB v Netherlands match scores

---

File Updated

Date	Notes
26 September 2025	First upload. 7 games, 3 part-games, 10 stubs, scores, reports.