Wouter Sipma (r.) thinks about how to respond to Jitse Slump's opening move 31-26. Photograph G. van Dijk
Slump - Sipma
Trying to win from dangerous position becomes fatal to black player
Author: Wouter Sipma
06-02-2024
My 'task' was to analyse a game from the 2023 Dutch Championship (in Drachten, December 2023). The choice was plenty: a strategic masterpiece by champion Groenendijk (in fact, all his victories), a fight game by Baliakin (especially his encounter with super-talent Boxum was epic - a fascinating game type and more than 70 moves of tension) or something of my own? Almost all my games were interesting, with a few experiments here and there that turned out to be good or bad... In the end, in consultation with the chief editor, the choice fell on my game against Jitse Slump from the twelfth round. This because of the rare character of the game after the opening and the fact that I can tell it from the first-person point of view as well as an 'all-knowing analyser'.
I played my last game against Slump 36 days earlier, almost 9,000 km away in the seventh round of the World Cup in Lishui, China. In that game, Slump saddled me with discomfort on two wings as early as the opening, which meant I was relegated to a mere spectator in the middle game, who had to see how I would fare (I survived). Now I had resolved to be well prepared for the game and had thought of an answer to all the opening moves. Except...
After a while, I decided to go for a variant I had wanted to put on the board six rounds earlier against Jan van der Star, but with white.
In my database, I see that this position has occurred 31 times, but the number of practical examples in which white actually tries to play a constructive strategy can be counted on one hand. Funny: the first time I count for this is the Sharafow-Zalitis game, semi-final of the 1967 USSR championship in Nizhny Tagil – but with build-up from 47 instead of from 46! For me, however, the prime example is Sijbrands-Van den Hurk (NC 2001); in terms of similarities to Slump-Sipma, however, the relatively recent Van IJzendoorn-Pan (World Championship 2019), is much more important! This game, which ended in a draw after a fierce fight, will be referred several times below.
Piquant detail: since 2015, I have been to every World Championship (whether I managed to qualify for the final is a second), except for the 2019 World Championship – for Slump, this was precisely his first World Championship final, and therefore he was able to watch Van IJzendoorn-Pan up close. After reading this article, you may decide whether this did not help him, at least subconsciously...
This is a good time to reflect on the ideas of the opening and the objectives of both players.
The position revolves around binding on black's short wing: because of the open square 2, black cannot play here, the white pieces on 21 and 26 (supported by 36 and 37) hold the black 'lego block' 1-6-7-11-12-17 – very economically. Because white was able to remove the piece on 33 with the previous exchange, the position lends itself perfectly to a lock-up strategy: after all, black can now only force 21-16 with a concession (18-22).
With these determinations, the goals for both colours can be determined:
- white wants to maintain the economic lock-up;
- white will continue to avoid square 33 for this purpose;
- white also wants to gain control on the right wing (square 30);
- white will try to play to the right as much as possible;
- white will try to exchange pieces to make the lock-up more pronounced;
- black wants to develop pieces from the lock-up;
- black will build a strong center and push white to the edge;
- black will want to attack from a strong center (sixth row);
- black will try to keep the pieces on the board.
Whereas in a battle between attack and surrounding the surrounding player often has the most difficult task, I think that in this case it is precisely black who is most at risk. The piece on 1 still has a function (prevents combinations to square 1), but piece 6 is really offside. Furthermore, it is often good for an attacker/center player to break open the position, but that doesn't apply here either: even if piece 21 is moved to 16, it still keeps five pieces (1-6-7-11-17) occupied. If piece 6 is on the other side of the board, I think it is precisely white again who is more at risk.
I was aware of the risks (especially against a formidable opponent), but to get on the podium something special had to happen, knowing that Baliakin awaited me in the final round. Moreover, the same was more or less true for Slump, although he faced Boxum in the last round. So we were both happy with battle on the board.
It could be that in this variant, white has better to consider a plan like 17. 38-32 and then move piece 41 to 27, to keep the position more closed. But even then black manages to continue 11-17.
The intelligent reader will wonder if black could then not have played 18-22 immediately after 12. 36-31 (13. 21-16 22-27x28). In that case, however, white is one move faster to attack piece 28 via square 33, so not entirely "free". By the way, it is always amusing to see how the two leading analysis programs of the moment −Kingsrow and Scan− differ on the value of the position. The programs each have their own preferences and traits: Scan prefers attacking positions and tempo advantage (which sometimes leads to banal −but not weak− opening play) and often gives relatively high ratings in all kinds of positions, while Kingsrow cares little about tempo relationships and in terms of value is not so quick to get excited. Where Flits used to be my only 'digital sparring partner', it is now possible in the latest versions of the unsurpassed Turbo Dambase to switch on several engines simultaneously. This way, you are sitting at the table with two super strong draught players at any given moment, so to speak! Needless to say, my Flits is now retired...
Attacking again with
In practice, this seems to me to be a difficult consideration for black: it is already difficult to value each endgame, and then you have to choose one of the three....
Conclusion: 29.36-31 sharpens the battle and certainly gives chances for white, but black can still maintain its foothold in any variation and sometimes (as in the last variant) hit back!
And what about that other game (with 48 on 47)? There Van IJzendoorn could also do 29.36–31, and in that case, that would really be a one-way game, in which black has to work hard not to lose. Maybe that game should be looked at again...
Moreover, Slump's last move worked a bit like a red rag on a bull: isn't that wing without 45 weakened? I wanted to keep fighting on, even for more than one point. But the interesting battle so far had taken its toll, especially on the clock: I was playing with 7 minutes, Slump with 15 (for 37. 45-40).
I realized with the game move (38...12-18) that I was burning my ships behind me −equally saying goodbye to the block 1-7-11-12− but did not immediately see what could happen to me.
It looks like white simply has a king-for-1, while the black front pieces go nowhere. But as is often the case with draughts, reality is unruly.
Slump thus delivered his best game of the tournament: a good opening choice, strong continuation and above all, an excellent tactical choice not to enter the chaos with 29.36-31!?, but to choose a variant in which white −with pressure on the clock− can make things difficult for black, and it showed. In a span of three meager moves, an almost equal position turned into a lost one!
I hope you enjoyed this analysis − it was fun to make. I look back on the game with mixed feelings: it is always wonderful to fight such a high-level battle, but of course I would have liked the outcome to be different. Next time I write for Damkunst, I will try to include a win!
PS Would you like to read more about this opening and this game type? Then I have to disappoint you at first: I am not familiar with much material. Except for a game you have to know about: Boomstra-Atse, World Cup 2015 (voted the most beautiful game of the tournament). Sijbrands wrote about it in his Volkskrant article on December 24, 2015 and January 2, 2016. Look it up!
Have you seen a (spelling) mistake? Mail to [email protected].