Sijbrands - Beeke
Ton Sijbrands (l.) mag tijdens het Lucas Bols-toernooi 1961/1962 voor de analfabete Baba Sy de ene winstpartij na de andere noteren. Geert van Dijk kijkt aandachtig toe.
Photograph: Nationaal Archief

Sijbrands - Beeke

To applet

Mijn eerste scalp

Author: Ton Sijbrands
25-03-2024

The exact moment I came into contact with the game of draughts is something I can no longer recall. That might sound strange coming from someone who has repeatedly referred to himself as a "numbers freak", but nonetheless, it’s the truth. The only thing I can state with near absolute certainty is that I must have been nine or ten years old when my parents taught me the rules of the game.

(On the back cover of the first volume of “Mijn Hollands Universum (My Dutch Universe)”, ChatGPT, the humble chatbot (“Oh no—no need to mention my name”), which kindly agreed to write the cover text, conveniently settled on “nine years”. But that, apparently, is open to debate.)

I think I was more likely nine than ten, because it feels as though an eternity passed (though I realize that may not mean much) before, shortly after my eleventh birthday (December 15, 1960), my father accompanied me to sign up at the Christian Draughts Club Amsterdam. But no record was ever made of that life-altering moment—In the grand scheme of the cosmos, utterly insignificant, but decisive in shaping my life—when my parents took the cardboard draughts board out of the cupboard, a board that had intrigued me already for so long. And there’s no one (anymore) I can ask about it. That particular event must have occurred ‘sometime’ in 1959, at the latest 1960. I can’t pinpoint my ‘birth as a draughts player’ any more precisely than this; the relatively broad margin of a year is simply impossible to narrow down.

As mentioned earlier, I became a member of CDA during the winter of 1960/1961, initially attending only the youth section led by Leen de Rooij and Henk Smit on Saturday afternoons at the then Pniëlkerk (now Podium Mozaïek) on the Bos-en-Lommerweg. But two or three months later, I made my transition to the "senior" section, which held its club meetings at the Max Euwe Huis on the Bilderdijkstraat. This allowed me to play my first ‘official’ game (with a clock and mandatory notation) on Friday, April 14, 1961, against Wim Zoutman, a player who—if I recall correctly—not long after left CDA to join the Jehovah’s Witnesses.

My inexperience and extremely limited, if not entirely non-existent, knowledge of the game (my only ‘compass’ was the booklet “Ken Uw Sport (Know Your Sport)” by the highly praised J.F. Moser) meant that my first games were simply unwatchable. It is no coincidence, therefore, that a modern top player who –more than a decade ago now– took on the editorial task of my autobiography at my request, strongly advised me not to publish games like Sijbrands-Zoutman 1961. So far, I’ve wisely followed that advice.

However, I improved rapidly, and my game progressed at a fast pace. On the one hand, this was due to the weekly lessons from R.C. Keller, who, during the Lucas Bols tournament of 1961/1962—where I had the privilege of recording Baba Sy’s many victories!—had taken notice of me. On the other hand, it was due to the studying of the tournament book on the 1948 World Championship, compiled by Piet Roozenburg, which I had received as a gift from my club and neighbourhood friend Piet Verweij (see also page 366 of “Mijn Hollands Universum”). In any case, by the end of that first year, I had earned promotion from the B group to the A group in CDA’s internal competition, where I had finished second behind Paul Johannesen. And in the final three months of 1962, I achieved my first individual success by winning the Amsterdam Youth Championship with a score of 19 points from 10 games (my only draw being against Henk Werner).

Earlier that year, on Keller’s recommendation, I had also joined Gezellig Samenzijn (GS), the “Club of Masters,” as Moser describes it in his "Zak-encyclopedie voor Dammers (Pocket Encyclopedia for Draughts Players)” (Baarn, 1960). At GS, I participated in the Youth Competition in the summer of 1962, engaging, among others, in a sharp battle in the so-called Jurg-variant with theoretician Rob Jansen. I also represented my new ‘part-time club’ in the Youth Team Competition (for five-player teams), where our GS II team became champions by – an incredible triumph!– defeating the older boys of GS I.

What had been brewing for some time, and what my first club likely feared, became a reality in March 1963: I permanently moved from CDA to the much stronger GS. I was given a place in their third (senior) team, where I won four games—including victories over KDA’s J. Huismans and the notable Tinus Delsen of APGS—but also lost a highly instructive game to the equally notable DSTO player Van den Heuvel. Incidentally, Van den Heuvel had spectacularly defeated multiple Dutch Championship finalist André (“Puk”) Ligthart in the 1951 club competition. For those readers without Moser’s "Modern Openingsspel (Modern Opening Play)” (see page 27 of the first volume): in Van den Heuvel-Ligthart 1951, the same explosive 19x19 position arose after 17 moves as it would in the Dutch Championship game W. de Jong-Bom 1955 four years later! And Ligthart went down in exactly the same, slightly naïve manner as Bom!

In late May or early June 1963, I achieved my second individual success. In the Youth Tournament organized by Gezellig Samenzijn—which included members of GS such as Herman van Westerloo and Dick Roelofs, alongside players like Anton Schotanus and Fred Ivens, who already had a degree of national recognition—I scored 12 points from 7 games. This was more than enough for the first place, finishing 2 points ahead of the trio Ivens/Schotanus/Van Westerloo.

Meanwhile, I had expanded my ‘draughts library’ with the so-called “Game Booklets” published by the Amsterdam District (read: secretary Klaas van Netten), which featured the most important competitions held at the time. These were stencil-copied booklets containing only the notations of the played games, occasionally enhanced with a stray question or exclamation mark authorized by R.C. Keller. Through these Game Booklets, I familiarized myself with the Dutch Championships of 1961-1963 (Wim de Jong! Piet Roozenburg!) and the 1960 World Championship, where Shchegolev, Baba Sy, and Kouperman stood out as a class apart. Additionally, during the previously mentioned Lucas Bols tournament of 1961/1962, I had acquired the twenty games played by Shchegolev and Kouperman in their first world title match in the fall of 1961. The four incredibly densely typed A3 sheets that South Holland master Philip Ham—famous for his brilliant 1939 victory over then-world champion Raichenbach—had tried to sell at Amsterdam’s Hotel Krasnapolsky, are still in my archive more than 62 years later.

That I draw such explicit attention to those—still highly enjoyable in 2024!—match games from 1961 arises partly from the fact that I was strongly inspired by the 9th match game between Kouperman and Shchegolev during my duel with Schotanus in the 1963 Youth Tournament. I’m not exaggerating: in the 13x13 phase after 32 moves, my position was identical to Kouperman’s! And because I—unlike Kouperman, who saw Shchegolev fend off the danger just in time—had to move, I was able to execute a wing attack that proved decisive in all variants!

(That said, just before this, in the 14x14 phase, I had taken a bizarre, entirely atypical setup that betrayed my complete lack of experience. It was, in fact, my very first encounter with the Semi-Fork, a type of game that—as I perceive it—is still subject to differing opinions today. But the last twenty moves of that game, no one can take them away from me.)

Click here to go to break-out 1 Van Dijk-Beeke 1957.

Ton Sijbrands - Henk Beeke

1.34-29...A perfectly normal opening move. But it wasn’t that way for me at the time: until June 1963, I had never opened a single official game with 1.34-29! (The eight casual '1.34-29 games' I played—without a clock—in my room at my parents’ house against Albert Pater (4x) and Ruud Palmer (also 4x) obviously don’t count.) Although there have certainly been periods in my life when I regularly used it, 1.34-29 never really became my favorite opening move. In fact, with the explicit exception of 1.35-30 and 1.32-27, I’ve acquired significantly more practical experience with every other move! 1....17-22Earlier that same year, in his Dutch Championship games against Holstvoogd and Van Hal, Beeke had chosen 1...19-23After 2.32-2823x323.37x2814-194.38-32/42-37 4....10-145.42-38/37-32 5....5-106.41-37in the first case, he had continued with 6...20-24 7.29x20 15x24, and in the last with the relatively sharper 6...16-21!? 2.40-3411-173.45-406-11
(see diagram) 4.50-45...This is considered by many to be the logical continuation of the first three moves. However, one could also argue that with 3.45-40, White's right wing development is essentially complete, and that it is therefore already time for either 4.31-26 or 4.32-28. There is another consideration. Some Black players, by choosing 1...17-22 and 2...11-17, etc., give the impression that they are prepared to engage in a sharp battle in (for example) the Keller variation. In reality, however, they often take the escape route with 4...22-27 (5.32x21 17x26; 5.31x22 18x27 6.32x21 17x26) whenever the opportunity arises. If you, as White, have no objection to this, there is obviously no reason not to simply play 4.50-45 or, if 45 is on 44 (1.33-29 17-22 2.39-33 11-17 3.44-39 6-11), 4.50-44. But for those who believe that a genuine pursuit of victory is best served by optimal battle and corresponding tension, it might be worth considering 4.31-26.

[Click here to go to break-out 3 (branch of 1.33-29 17-22).] 4....1-6Beeke maintains the symmetry—for a little longer—before breaking it once and for all on the next move. “What applies to one color in symmetrical positions almost inevitably applies to the other color as well”, I wrote on page 31 of "Mijn Hollands Universum"). This was due to the unaltered classical 20x20 position that, after eight moves (1.31-27 18-23 2.33-28 17-21 3.39-33 12-18 4.34-30 20-24 5.30-25 21-26 6.44-39 7-12 7.40-34 11-17 8.34-30 17-21), appeared on the board in my game against Ruud Palmer in the decisive final round of the 1963 Amsterdam Youth Championship. (Side note: at the start of that final round, which took place less than four months after the present encounter with Beeke, Palmer and I were both boasting a perfect score! The only question, whose answer remains shrouded in mystery 61 years later, is whether the score was 12 from 6 or—quite a difference—20 from 10. See Epilogue-2 on pages 60 and 61.) But what I stated about (symmetrical) classical positions naturally applies just as much to (symmetrical) flank positions. And where White just had serious alternatives in 4.31-26 and 4.32-28, Black, in turn, had useful alternatives in 4…20-25 and 4…19-23. The first of these continuations, in particular, is popular among Black players who like to play the Keller variant with reversed colors (4…20-25 5.35-30 19-23 6.32-28 23x32 7.37x28 16-21 8.41-37 21-27 9.28-23 11-16 10.31-26 27-31 and so on, etc.). 5.31-26...The far most well-known and – in my opinion – the only serious alternative to the text move is 5.32-28. This too can easily lead to a transposition of moves. The position after 5.32-28 16-21 6.31-26 can ultimately arise from 5.31-26 16-21 6.32-28 as well. And after 5.32-28 19-23 6.28x19 14x23 7.35-30 16-21!? 8.31-26, the exact same position as after 5.31-26 16-21 6.32-28 19-23 7.28x19 14x23 8.35-30 appears on the board. But it is also possible that 5.32-28 will be continued independently, with 5...19-23 6.28x19 14x23 7.35-30 10-14, and now either directly 8.31-27 22x31 9.36x27 (9…20-25), or first 8.40-35 14-19 and then 9.31-27 22x31 10.36x27 (as seen in the previously mentioned game Boomstra-Cordier 2015!). 5....19-23It is true that of the three ‘canonized’ continuations available to Black in the position after 5.31-26 (which implicitly suggests that supporters of 5…20-24 6.29x20 14x25/15x24 don’t even make the cut), 5…19-23 is the least popular. For example, the symmetrical 5...20-25 is encountered more than one and a half times as often, not to mention the 5...16-21 introduced by Keller, which is almost seven times as popular! Nevertheless, in my opinion, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the text move. Just like 5...16-21 or 5...20-25, 5…19-23 can lead to extremely lively play, regardless of whether White continues with the ambitious 6.35-30 (note that after 6...20-25 the same position would arise as after 5...20-25 6.35-30 19-23) or with the continuation he chose in the game: 6.32-28...An interesting question is,from the position after... 6.35-3020-25
(which, by the way, occurs much more often via 5...20-25 6.35-30 19-23; see analysis diagram), what White's most promising move is.
Should he play 7.32-28 23x32 8.37x28? Or does 7.30-24 or 7.40-35 deserve the preference? The order of these moves reflects, in passing, the popularity of the three different options. There’s much to be said about this, but unfortunately, it falls outside the scope of this article, just as there’s no room here for discussions on the Keller variant or the Keller variant with reversed colors.
The only personal confession I wish to share with the reader is that, in retrospect, I am shocked by the utterly poor way I handled (or rather, mishandled)the position after 6.35-30 20-25 in the first half of the seventies. Whether (almost) world champion or not, both against Gantwarg (World Championship 1972) and against Herman van Westerloo (Clock Simultaneous VAD 1973), after 7.32-28 23x32 8.37x28 13-19, I could think of nothing better than 9.30-24 19x30 10.29-23 18x29 11.33x35 22x33 12.38x29. It wasn’t until the eighties that I finally mastered this specific line. 6....23x327.37x2820-248.29x2015x24!?
With 7...16-21 directly, this is the most interesting continuation of 5...19-23, much more interesting than the also-played 7...13-19 with 19-23x23 at some point. However, the condition is that Black must still bring up piece 16, which Beeke—I can reveal this already—will indeed do. 9.38-32...Regarding the question of whether this move offers certain advantages or disadvantages compared to simply playing 9.41-37, I have little opinion. That is to say: I am far from blind to the fact that with 9.38-32, White indirectly closes off that counterplay (the upcoming Black Roozenburg attack) where he keeps the squares 47, 48, and 42 occupied, as was the case in the competition duel J. Eggen-R. van Marle 1998, in the training game Schirinzi-Van Prinsenbeek 1999, or in Schwarzman-Lesnes, Salou 2022. Nor does it escape me that White reserves the possibility, if desired, to set up his position at some point with 43-38 and 49-43. (In the game, I will—second spoiler—actually opt for a setup with 42-38 and 48-42.)
How these three fundamentally different methods of dealing with the opponent’s Roozenburg should be evaluated—no idea, neither then nor now. But I do remember why I was so drawn to 9.38-32 at the time. This choice for game move didn’t or hardly stem from damtechnically considerations, but had everything to do with a photo I had seen in "Het Damspel (The Game of Draughts)", the official publication of the KNDB. In issue 11 of the 53rd volume, there was a snapshot from the game Andreiko-Koeperman, USSR Championship 1961. In that photo, you can see Andreiko, who won his first Soviet-Russian title that year (seven more were to follow!), after the opening moves 1.32-28 18-22 2.37-32 12-18 3.41-37 7-12 4.46-41 1-7 5.31-26 19-23 6.28x19 14x23 7.32-28 23x32 8.37x28 16-21, just played 9.38-32! Now, I do not claim that there are no differences between the opening lines in Andreiko-Koeperman 1961 and Sijbrands-Beeke 1963. Nevertheless, it is easy to understand why I felt I had to play 9.38-32 as well, especially for those who also had idols in their youth. By the way, I do not believe—returning briefly to the beginning of the first paragraph—that it makes any real difference whether White plays 9.38-32 or 9.41-37. It only really matters when Black responds to 9.41-37 with the sharp continuation 9...16-21. In that case, it does make a difference whether White simply allows his opponent onto field 27 (10.46-41 21-27), or if he forces the exchange of a pair of pieces (21-27x27) with 10.38-32!? 11-16 11.43-38 7-11 12.37-31. 9....14-1910.41-3716-21!?
(See diagram) Beeke gives an appropriate continuation to his seventh move by steering toward a Roozenburg attack. That was certainly not a specialty of my opponent: of all Beeke games that can be found in the database (incidentally, fewer than 150), this is literally the only one in which he plays the Roozenburg system himself! On the other hand, I was also a virtually clean slate when it came to countering the Roozenburg: except for one poorly played game on both sides against Herman van Westerloo, Youth Competition GS 1962, I had not the slightest practical experience with it up to that point. I want to briefly return to the note on White's 5th move (31-26). There, I gave as an alternative possibility 5.32-28 19-23 6.28x19 14x23 7.35-30 10-14 8.31-27 22x31 9.36x27, after which a plausible continuation is 9...20-25 10.37-32/40-35 13-19. Those who look closely will see that, even though with reversed colors and—of course—1 tempo more for White, exactly that position has arisen which Beeke brought to the board with the text move! 11.42-38...For optimal counterplay against the setup with (10...)16-21 and so on 11.43-38!?might have been more suitable. After all, if Black wants to delay or postpone the move 21-27x27 after 11-1612.37-31White can more easily direct a piece to square 37, thereby increasing pressure on the opponent's right wing. Aside from that, 11.43-38 would also allow him to, as mentioned, under certain conditions, take up a position with 49-43. See, for example, the exciting games Tsjizjov-Dul Erdenebileg, Seaports Masters (Delfzijl) 2008, and Virny-J.E. de Vries, Club Competition 2014.
With the colors reversed — and thus 1 tempo more for the 'attacker' — this same variant, among others, appeared on the board in the explosive duels fought between Schwarzman (White) and Kalmakov in the tournaments of Amersfoort 2012 and Heerhugowaard 2013. More recent examples include games such as Lorevil-Anikejev (World Championship 2023), Van IJzendoorn-Boxum (Dutch Championship 2023), and Van der Star-Terweijden (same). 11....11-1612.48-42...
(see diagram) Perhaps I first wanted to position the formation 42/38/33 before executing the offensive move 13.28-23 (13...19x28 14.32x23 18x29 15.34x23). This manoeuvre would now indeed carry great strength after 12...7-11(?). However, Beeke wisely eliminates this possibility—indirectly—and it turns out there is a minor, though not entirely negligible, flaw to the positioning with (12.)48-42. That is why I believe that 12.46-41would have been a fraction more precise. If Black then plays 12....10-15as in the game, White would have after 13.37-317-11, the move 14.41-37!?(For example, 14....5-1015.48-4210-1416.47-41!?) available. See also the commentary on 13.46-41 in this regard.

The text move, by the way, fit seamlessly into the plan I had in mind, a plan entirely based on the strategy with which Koeperman had won against Sjtsjogoljev in the 3rd match game of the 1961 World Championship! The first sixteen moves of that duel, nothing less than the 'pioneering game' when it comes to actively countering the Roozenburg setup, looked as follows:

[Click here to go to break-out 4 (Koeperman-Sjtsjogoljev 1961).]
12....10-15!(See diagram)
"Played with expertise," I am inclined to write in such cases. But that would be stretching the truth. As I made clear above, Beeke, given his lack of experience with the Roozenburg attack, could hardly have carried any knowledge of this game type. It is therefore all the more impressive that the Black player at the board still finds the right plan. Thanks to the text move, Black can respond 13.28-23(?) 19x28 14.32x23 18x29 15.34x23 with the strong 15...13-18! The capture with 16.39-34?? 18x29 17.34x23 is then countered by the king combination 17...24-30!, 18...15-20, and 19...4-10+, so White has no better option than 18.33-29 24x33 19.38x29. With 19...9-13, followed by either 5-10-14, 3-9-14, or even 4-9-14, Black can then target the opponent's outpost. See also the club competition game H. van Westerloo-Bronstring from November 2016. 13.46-41...A new clichéd continuation that at first glance seems fine, but does not improve White's chances of successfully countering the enemy's Roozenburg attack. A more energetic approach would have been 13.37-31!?on the condition that White plays on 7-11(Here is the "not entirely negligible flaw" I referred to in the note on 12.48-42: now there is a threat of a king with 14...19-23! and 15...22-27+), not with the exchange 14.31-27 22x31 15.36x27/26x37, but with the unusual move 14.42-37!?
continues. (See analysis diagram)
Although this move may look a bit strange, a closer examination shows there is nothing wrong with it. For example, 14...18-23?! 15.34-29! 23x34 16.40x20 15x24 17.47-42! would be perfectly satisfactory for White. Furthermore, 14...21-27? 15.32x21 16x27 is still too early due to a response in which White turns a disadvantage (the leftover piece on 46) into an advantage, namely 16.37-32! 11-16 17.32x21 16x27 18.47-41!! and always 19.26-21!+, especially after 18...18-23. (This tactical twist will be familiar to Sytze Spijker and Carlos Lorevil (see above)…) What remains is a continuation like 14....5-1015.47-4210-14, on which White increases the tension with 16.46-41!?(Note that the same position has now arisen as would have occurred after 12.46-41 10-15 13.37-31 7-11 14.41-37 5-10 15.48-42 10-14 16.47-41; see analysis diagram.)

Incidentally, for all the critical comments one might make about White's play in the 18x18 phase, it must always be kept in mind that these observations are only relevant if White, after the definitive transition to a Roozenburg, with 21-2717.32x2116x27
were to have a different, more satisfactory plan than 18.34-29 or 18.37-3211-1619.32x2116x2720.34-29(Where I am, of course, referring to 18.34-30 or to 18.37-32 11-16 19.32x21 16x27 20.34-30, as there simply are no other plans.) However, if the analysis were to show that White has no better option than to play 34-29 at some point, then it would all just result in switching moves with the course of the game. In that case, it makes no difference whether White positions themselves with 13.46-41 or 13.37-31, just as the earlier choice between 12.48-42 and 12.46-41 would also have been a storm in a teacup. 13....7-11!(see diagram)
Aside from the previously mentioned 14.28-23?! (14...19x28 15.32x23 18x29 16.34x23 13-18!), 14.37-31?? is now also ruled out. As a result, White must choose between 14.34-30 or 14.34-29 at an early stage.
14.34-29...Whether 14.34-30 might have been the preferred choice, I really wouldn’t dare to say: relevant practical experience with it is still lacking. However, I strongly suspect that if White wants to achieve something positive from this opening variant, it will be more likely from 14.34-30 than from the move played. It results, after all,—until the game starts to turn in about eight moves—in an undeniably satisfactory position for Black. 14....4-10?!Although Beeke still had at least an equal game after this (it is only as a result of his incorrect 22nd and 23rd moves that the chances will drastically shift), 14...4-10 must at least be considered a slight flaw. After all, there was no reason why Black, assuming he thought it was still too early for 14...21-27, couldn't simply play 14...5-10!?15.29x2015x24In any case, he had nothing to fear from the quasi-alert 16.36-31?: after 21-27!17.32x2116x3618.37-3136x2719.38-3227x2920.39-3422x3321.34x5Black disregards the capturing of the king with 21...13-19, etc., in favor of the countercombination 21....33-38!!22.42x33(absolutely forced) 22....24-3023.35x2413-1924.24x2217x50with an advantageous middle game-with-kings!

For Beeke, it was by no means obvious to choose 5-10 over 4-10 when he had a ‘free’ choice. For example, in the position after 1.32-28 18-23 2.33-29 23x32 3.37x28 20-25 4.41-37 12-18 5.39-33 7-12 6.44-39 1-7 (Beeke-Van der Sluis, Dutch Championship 1957), he did not play 7.46-41 (or 7.37-32 or 7.29-24 19x30 8.35x24), but rather 7.47-41?! Similarly, in his game against Okrogelnik at the Lucas Bols Tournament 1960, after 1.32-28 18-23 2.33-29 23x32 3.37x28 20-25 4.39-33 12-18 5.44-39 7-12 6.41-37 19-23 7.28x19 14x23 8.50-44 10-14, he preferred the equally odd and blemishing 9.47-41?!... It is primarily because of these kinds of moves that I felt justified in using terms like "unschooled" and "unpolished" in the introduction. However, the fact that Beeke sometimes—I assume unintentionally—saddled himself with a positional handicap does not diminish his capabilities as a draughts player! 15.29x2015x2416.40-3421-2717.32x2116x27The Roozenburg attack is a reality. 18.37-31!?...
The sharpest counterplay. The relatively passive variant 18.37-3211-1619.32x2116x2720.34-30a style of play with which I was, in 1963, possibly even less familiar than with the completed version of the Roozenburg (for example, no one had heard of the 'Drost gambit' at that time!), would have achieved absolutely nothing under the given circumstances. 18....11-16?!The Black player apparently doesn't want to give his opponent the opportunity for 41-37-32. However, the remedy is worse than the disease, as if White continues now with 19.44-40! and 20.34-29!, it typically leads to a position where the move 11-16 becomes a real weakness. Therefore, it was better to immediately play 18...9-14!the move Beeke wil play later, which also would have been more precise. Via 19.41-3711-16!(only now) 20.37-326-11!21.32x2116x2722.47-41(But perhaps 22.34-30 here demonstrates more realism) it could have still resulted in a position from the course of the game. 19.42-37?!...But because the White player also pays more attention to the attack on 27 than to an action against 24, Black's 18th move remains without consequence. 19....9-14!Excellent played! Black indeed could not afford to leave field 14 open any longer, because otherwise White would have proceeded directly with 20.37-32! and 41-37-32! However, the presence of a Black piece on 14 forces him to take into account the possibility (22...)24-29! But the exclamation mark behind the text move is there mainly because the position with (19...)9-14 is incomparably much more stylish than a position with the static (19...)10-14. I will return to this in the next note. 20.37-326-11!21.32x2116x2722.47-42...
I can imagine that those readers who are at least somewhat familiar with 'what the Roozenburg system is all about' might wonder why White is not playing 22.34-29
(see analysis diagram).

Indeed: after the seemingly forced 22...3-9? 23.29x20 14x25 24.41-37! 11-16 25.37-32! Black, who has no time for 25...18-23? 26.32x21 16x27 (27.33-29! +), must take very special measures to prevent his position from being blown apart by 27.47-42! and 28.33-29!. Now, this by itself does not tell the whole story (see, in this context, the detailed commentary on Beeke's 23...10-15), but that is not my point here. What matters here is that Black should respond to 22.34-29 not with 22...3-9 but with the equally beautiful and surprising 22....27-32!!23.29x932x23!White cannot push the piece on 9 to square 4. ( 24.9-4??) due to 24....19-24!(or, if preferred, first 24...2-7 or 24...3-9) 25.4x2923x3426.39x3022-2727.31x2217x50+. Thus, Black must allow the capture (24...3x14), after which it is Black who has an excellent position!

As far as I can tell, Sijbrands-Beeke 1963 is one of the very first 'Roozenburg games' in which—even if indirectly—use was made of the majority combination 27-32! followed by 32x23. However, my opponent, who remarked after the game that Black could also have responded two moves earlier to (20.)34-29 with (20...)27-32, and similar moves (although I suspect I chose not to play 20.34-29 at that moment mainly because of 20...3-9 21.29x20 14x25, for example 22.37-32?! 18-23! 23.32x21 16x27), deserves credit for discovering a unique maneuver, one that—even in 2024—still seems to be absent from any other game! And to think that Beeke—let it be said again—had no significant experience with this challenging game type...

With the diagram position, in my opinion, the most important moment of the game has arrived. But before continuing the discussion of this particular encounter, I want to point out the connection to the game between Hein Meijer (White) and Anton van Berkel from the second-to-last round of the Dutch Championship 2014. I do this not because of the parallel itself; 15x15 positions like the one in the diagram, with identical material distributions on that side of the board—the left side—where the decision is expected to fall, have occurred more often. No, I bring up Meijer-Van Berkel 2014 because the analysis of that game revealed a brilliant tactical idea I had never seen before, and which, according to everyone I spoke to, was entirely new!

To understand what I mean, the reader only needs to move the piece on field 5 to field 4, play 3-9 instead of 6-11, and place 41 back on 47. If all goes well, the following position should now appear on your board:

[Click here to go to Break-Out 5 (Meijer-Van Berkel 2014).]
Back to Sijbrands-Beeke 1963. 22....3-9?The first of two consecutive mistakes that turn a satisfying attacking position into a (virtually) untenable one. Closing field 9 was, in itself, a good idea. In fact, in the absence of a piece on 4, the move 3-9 is even an indispensable part of the plan that Black should follow to prevent the enemy action against 27! However, Beeke should have played a different move first, namely 22...2-7Apart from the fact that 23.41-37? would have been even more explicitly ruled out by 23...27-32! 24.38x27 24-29! +, the crucial difference with the actual game progression is that Black can (continue to) respond to 23.34-29 with the previously mentioned 23...27-32! 24.29x9 32x23! and 25...3x14. As a result, White would have been left with only two constructive ways to play after 22...2-7:
A)23.34-303-9(now only; see analysis diagram) and now:
A1)24.41-37?(After this move, which in the given situation constitutes a serious mistake, the point of the setup with 2-7 and 3-9 becomes clear:) 18-23!!25.37-3224-29!!and however White captures – Black always combines to a king! To avoid falling further behind in material, White’s best option is 26.33x24!22x3327.38x1827x4728.31-27!13x3129.24x15but there is no doubt that after 29....14-20!the Black king-for-two-pieces exchange is sufficient for the win.
Incidentally—anno 1963, this tactical idea was completely unknown to me. It wasn’t until the spring of 1967 that Cees Varkevisser pointed out this combinative possibility while we were jointly analyzing the orthodox Roozenburg variant (1.32-28 16-21 2.31-26 18-22 3.37-32 11-16 4.41-37 7-11 5.34-29 1-7 6.46-41 20-24 7.29x20 15x24 8.40-34 13-18 9.37-31 21-27 10.32x21 16x27 11.42-37 9-13 12.48-42, and so on).
(That must have been—it cannot have been otherwise—that same evening of Saturday, March 4, 1967, which I mentioned on page 387 of Mijn Hollands Universum.)
I incorporated this exchange into a—admittedly exceedingly brief—investigation of the 1.32-28 16-21 opening in "Beter Dammen" (Better Draughts), published in 1969 in collaboration with Philip de Schaap. Four years later (September 1973), Fokke de Jong became the first to capitalize on it in a competition game against Dirk Boom.
A2)24.45-4018-23And now: A2a)25.40-34(I will briefly return to the alternative 25.30-25 later.) 25...23x3226.33-2924x3327.39x3719-2328.37-32(absolutely forced due to the positional threat 28...23-28!) 28....11-1629.32x2116x27
(see analysis diagram). Despite the fact that two White pieces are now in position to target 27, while Black can only counter the attack 37-32 once with 11-16 (32x21) and 16x27, it is out of the question that the outpost would actually be in danger. This is because Black can, in almost all cases, work with the push (30...)23-28! And because White no longer has the formation 50/44/39, which could have been used to exchange the enemy intruder forward (39-33! and 44x33). It is important to note that White has had to miss this formation 50/44/39 since his fourth (!) move, and that–if this had been a game with the 1.33-29 17-22 opening–this fourth move was, in a sense, already contained in his very first move...
It would have been a very different story if, for example, White had had 3 fewer tempi and 34 on 50. Or 2 fewer tempi, with 30 already on 25 but (and this is the key!) 34 still on 50. Under the given circumstances, however, White cannot seriously threaten the piece on 27, meaning that Black essentially has excellent attacking play! The only critique one (in this case Beeke) could make of Black's position is that piece 5 would of course have been better placed on fields 4 or 3. But this is more of a cosmetic flaw than a (very) real weakness.
In any case–the insight that a Roozenburg attack is difficult to successfully counter when the ‘opponent’ no longer has a piece on 50 would later lead me to sometimes play this opening system from the current game as Black! As in a stylish training duel from February 1971 (Paramaribo) against Surinamese champion Ramdew Ramcharan. See: 1.34-29 17-22 2.40-34 11-17 3.45-40 6-11 4.50-45 1-6 5.31-26 19-23 6.32-28 23x32 7.37x28 20-24 8.29x20 15x24 9.41-37 16-21 10.46-41 21-27 11.37-31 14-19 12.42-37 9-13 13.48-42 7-11 14.37-32 9-14 15.32x21 16x27 etc., etc.
Or I tried to reach a similar Roozenburg attack from (slightly) different opening variants. As in a clock simultaneous game (2004) against Harry de Waard (1.33-29 19-23 2.32-28 23x32 3.37x28 18-22 4.39-33 16-21 5.44-39 20-24 6.29x20 15x24 7.50-44 12-18 8.41-37 7-12 9.31-26 21-27 etc.; also see the thrilling competition game A. van Huet-E. Drost 1973!) or against Bert van Harten (Clock Simultaneous Amstelveen, July 3, 1988), a game where the first eighteen moves were: 1.33-29 16-21 2.31-26 11-16 3.39-33 19-23 4.32-28 23x32 5.37x28 18-22 6.41-37 14-19 7.38-32 12-18 8.42-38 10-14 9.37-31 7-12 10.44-39 1-7 11.50-44 5-10 12.46-41 7-11 13.48-42 20-24 14.29x20 15x24 15.41-37 21-27 16.32x21 16x27 17.37-32 11-16 18.32x21 16x27.
The reader will now also understand why, in my competition game from 2007 against Ton Eekelschot (see the note at 4.50-45), I moved heaven and earth to prevent my opponent from executing the maneuver 20-24x24 from the position after 1.33-29 17-22 2.39-33 11-17 3.44-39 6-11 4.31-26 19-23 5.32-28 23x32 6.37x28 16-21 7.41-37 21-27 8.37-31 1-6.
In conclusion of this brief discussion about the position in the analysis diagram, I would also like to point out that White will likewise fail to make anything of the formation 49/43/38. For even a setup with (30).42-37 cannot prevent Black from strongly playing (30...)23-28!
For White, it is then crucial to dispose themselves of the outpost on 28, because otherwise, they will inevitably be brought down by the 'hidden' piece on 41. (See, for example, Toet-Sijbrands from the VDK tournament 1970.) This means that after 30.42-3723-28White presumably best continues with 31.38-3227x3832.43x2313-1933.44-3919x2834.39-3328x3935.34x4322-2836.31-27(35...22-28 36.31-27), even though Black remains clearly in the lead.
The weakness of 41, of course in combination with an opposing piece occupying 28, can become so severe that Black might even consider sacrificing an entire piece under certain circumstances. For instance, I do not rule out that if in the diagram position 30 were on 25 (and 34 therefore still on 40) — a situation that, Even though with two negligible differences, actually occurred in the club competition duel Pippel-Teer 2001! — Black, after 30.42-37 23-28 31.38-32 27x38 32.43x23 13-19!!? 33.25-20 19x28 34.20-15 8-13 35.15x4 13-18 36.4x13 18x9, would still have the best chances!
(See in this context also and especially the games Kolesov-Leontiev, semifinals of the Russian Championship 2002, and Ndjofang-Hoeseinov, semifinals of the World Championship 2005. Very recently, we encountered a similar (pseudo)sacrifice in the analysis of Dolfing-Anikejev, the game that proved decisive for the outcome of the World Championship 2023!) A2b)As promised, I will briefly return to the alternative 25.30-25But I immediately add that this is not a particularly relevant line of play. With 30 already on 25 25....23x3226.33-2924x3327.39x37
; see analysis diagram), Black has an entirely different method at their disposal to burden White with that weak, if not deadly, piece on 41.
To achieve this, however, Black must start with 27....13-18!28.44-39because 28.37-32is too early due to the thematic finesse 28....22-28!29.31x1528x50+ ,he can continue with 28...18-23!The positionally desirable 29.37-32the more realistic move is the defensive 29.39-33is then combinatively prevented by 29...9-13!!30.32x2114-20!31.25x1423-2832.14x3222-2733.31x2217x46with a winning king for Black after 46-14-3. B)23.45-4010-15!Or alternatively 23...3-9However, 23...10-15 is arguably more compelling, as Black would now respond to 24.34-30? with 24...14-20!! 25.30-25 19-23!! and so on, culminating in a winning king on 47! 24.34-29*24.34-3014-2025.30-2519-2326.28x3011-1627.25x1427-3228.38x2713-1929.14x2318x4730.27x1812x233-925.29x2015x24(see analysis diagram) and now:
B1)26.41-37?(Also in this setting, a straightforward mistake.) 18-23!27.37-3224-29!28.33x24*22x3329.38x1827x4730.31-27*13x3131.24x4*14-19!32.26x37*5-10!33.4x1519-2434.15x2947x24/15 and Black has, for the numerous time, a promising, if not winning, 'King-for-two'. B2)26.40-345-10and now immediately another new split: B2a)27.34-30(see analysis diagram) with–this time–two options for Black:
B2a1)27...10-15?!28.41-37!?(Now this is possible!) 18-2329.37-3224-2930.33x2422x3331.38x1827x4732.31-2713x3133.24x431-3734.4-31!(With the tactical justification 34...37-41?? 35.30-24! 47x20 36.36x47+) 47-42And both after 35.30-24, as well as after 35.39-3342x2036.31x48or after 35.43-38 42x20 36.31x48 42x2036.31x48, a middlegame-with-Kings arises, of which the exact value cannot be determined. B2a2)27...18-23!28.30-2523x3229.33-2924x3330.39x3719-23!(but here, under no circumstances, 30...13-18??due to 31.25-20!14x2532.35-3025x3433.43-3934x3234.37x2822x3335.31x15+ 31.37-3211-1632.32x2116x27After which Black has once again maintained an excellent attacking position from the encounters in the Roozenburg. It is again important to note that 33.42-3723-28!White cannot be freed from serious disadvantage, for example 34.38-3227x3835.43x2310-15(or possibly even 35...13-19!!? , despite 36.25-2019x2837.20-15and so on. 36.37-3222-28!37.41-3728x19With a superior position for Black.
(There is an undeniable parallel with the game for the internal club championship in which –once again!– Fokke de Jong won from RDG player Piet Scheeres in 1977. See "De Haagsche Courant" from July 9, 1977.)
B2b)27.34-2910-15!28.29x2015x24And now, a final branching:
B2b1)29.41-37?(33...11-16?? 34.33-28! 22x33 35.39x28 +) Black may be left with a slightly better position; I dare not make a definitive statement about it. But in any case, there is a lively game situation on the board, and I could imagine that White, unlike in most alternative variations, is not without constructive chances.
Note, by the way, that the pseudo-sacrifice that leads to such an unusual change of scene in this line (29.35-30, etc.) is rarely, if ever, seen in practice. I also mentioned this on page 236 of "Henk Smit, mijn leermeester en inspirator" (Henk Smit, my mentor and inspirer), following an extensive examination of a position that bears a great resemblance to Sijbrands-Beeke. However, to avoid testing my readers' patience any further, I left out a reference to the game with Beeke. I also did not mention at that time that the intended pseudo-sacrifice could very well have occurred in the competition game Sijbrands-Heusdens 2005. That ultra-short but no less intriguing competitive duel, which would challenge all my presumed certainties about the Roozenburg setup, will soon be revisited, in the commentary on Beeke's 23rd move, for good reason...
Let’s return, after this long deviation, to the actual course of the game. 29...18-2330.37-32(see analysis diagram).

Unlike in earlier variants (such as "1.1" and "2.1"), White now seems able to permit this sudden escalation of the battle. After all:
B2b1a)following 30....24-2931.33x2422x3332.38x1827x4733.31-2713x3134.24x431-3735.4-1537-4236.43-3842x3337.39x28It would be Black who, with 37....11-16(!) 38.44-39or 38.35-3017-22(!) 39.28x1712x2140.26x1714-2041.15x1116x7, must exchange into a draw endgame. B2b1b)But appearances are deceiving. For in addition to 30...24-29(?), Black turns out to have a completely different possibility, namely 30...11-16!!31.32x2116x27(see analysis diagram). The main point of this extraordinarily surprising turn is not so much that White has no tempo for the 2x2 exchange to 37, but rather that he cannot, in any respect, take advantage of the open fields 11 and 2. After 32.44-4023x3233.33-2822x4434.31x2follows, namely 34....44-50!35.38x2713-18!36.2x22*36.2x4?50-637.4x226x37+ 50x6(To be able to respond to 37.42-38?!with 37....12-17!) with an end phase where all chances are once again in Black's favor.

There seems to be a relatively old game of Ruud Palmer, not entered into Turbo Dambase, in which the former youth champion used the above exchange (the only difference with the position in the analysis diagram was that the colors were reversed and 14 was already on 25) to emerge victorious. (With – sadly posthumous – thanks to Wim van der Kooij, who provided me with a column from the Eindhovens Dagblad of December 2, 1978, in the fall of 2006. It discussed the decisive fragment from the game in question, though without mentioning the name of Palmer's opponent.)

But I was only made aware of this turning point 11-16!! followed by 16x27! by the game that Georgiev – although with reversed colors – won against Tsjizjov in the 2006 European Championship (see diagram). Since there were additional pieces on 6 and 48 in that game (otherwise the position was identical to Sijbrands-Beeke 1963), Georgiev’s maneuver was actually even more surprising. Indeed: with a piece on 6, Black can, unlike in the analysis variant above or in ‘Palmer-NN 1978’, play 30...6-11 31.28x19 18-22 32.27x18 12x14. However, this wouldn't be very effective, because White would respond with 33.32-28! and then forcefully continue with 34.28-23! For 34...14-19? White doesn’t have enough time due to 35.29-23! 32.20x49 36.23x1. Since 30...7-11 31.28x19 18-23, etc., was even even more unlikely (as mentioned above), Tsjizjov resorted to the desperate combination:

[Click here to go to Georgiev-Tsjizjov 2006 ]
B2b2)29.35-30!?24x3530.41-37!
(see analysis diagram). From the position after 22...2-7! (instead of Beeke's 22...3-9?) this is probably White's best plan. After 30....18-2331.37-3213-1832.32x2123x3233.38x278-1311-16??34.33-28!22x3335.39x28+) Black may be left with a slightly better position; I dare not make a definitive statement about it. But in any case, there is a lively game situation on the board, and I could imagine that White, unlike in most alternative variations, is not without constructive chances.
Note, by the way, that the pseudo-sacrifice that leads to such an unusual change of scene in this line (29.35-30, etc.) is rarely, if ever, seen in practice. I also mentioned this on page 236 of "Henk Smit, mijn leermeester en inspirator" (Henk Smit, my mentor and inspirer), following an extensive examination of a position that bears a great resemblance to Sijbrands-Beeke. However, to avoid testing my readers' patience any further, I left out a reference to the game with Beeke. I also did not mention at that time that the intended pseudo-sacrifice could very well have occurred in the competition game Sijbrands-Heusdens 2005. That ultra-short but no less intriguing competitive duel, which would challenge all my presumed certainties about the Roozenburg setup, will soon be revisited, in the commentary on Beeke's 23rd move, for good reason...
Let’s return, after this long deviation, to the actual course of the game. 23.34-29!...
Now that the majority capture twist 27-32 (29x9) and 32x23 is no longer an option, this is indeed playable. White clears field 34 to be able to continue, after Black responds with 23...10-15 and 24...15x24, with 41-37 without interference. 23....10-15?And that is exactly how it happens in reality! However, the move of the game, however obvious, does have the disadvantage that Black will hardly be able to avoid losing. More precisely, Black will have to choose between either a situation where he is a full piece down or a situation where his opponent breaks through to a king at the cost of only one piece... To avoid both scenarios, Beeke should have played 23...11-16(!) 24.29x20 14x25 at all costs. But before I explain why 23...11-16 would have been better, and before we discuss what could have happened in that case, I suggest we take a detour to a game I just referred to.

[Click here to go to break-out 8 (Sijbrands-Heusdens 2005).]
23...11-1624.29x2014x2525.44-409-1426.49-4419-2327.28x1914x2328.33-2923x3429.40x292-730.44-4010-1431.29-2414-1932.38-3319x3033.35x247-1134.42-3818-2335.33-2923x3436.39x3025x3437.40x2924.29x2015x24
25.41-37!...White initiates the march towards field 32. This is now possible due to the fact that Black, unlike in four previous variants from the commentary on Beeke's 22...3-9?, has not yet had the opportunity to play 2-7. 25....11-16On 25...18-23White could have even, apart from 26.37-32! (without the slightest fear of the suicide king combination 26...24-29?? 27.32x21! 23x32 28.38x16 29x47 29.21x3 +) 26...11-16 27.32x21 16x27 28.45-40 23x32 29.33-29 24x33 30.39x37 (see the next note), played 26.45-40!23x4127.36x4727x3628.26-2117x2629.33-2924x3330.39x6As a result of the open field 3, Black is not able this time to neutralize the king with a draw (30...2-7 31.6-1 12-17, and so on). 26.37-32...
26....16-21By giving the enemy occupation of field 32 a permanent character, Beeke tries to delay the development (28.)33-29 and so on for as long as possible. Indeed, Black would have lost a full piece after 26...18-23 27.32x21 16x27 28.45-40 23x32 29.33-29 24x33 30.39x37 (after 30...2-7/13-18 31.44-39! he cannot maintain the majority capture twist 31.37-32? 22-28!! for long), without being able to offer any concrete counterplay for the lost piece. It also seemed likely that Black would have been lost after 26...5-10 27.32x21 16x27 28.33-29! 24x33 29.38x29 22x24 30.31x11 12-17 31.11x22 18x27 32.42-37/43-38, among other reasons because the defense 32...2-7 33.43-38/42-37 7-11 34.37-31! 8-12 35.31x22 12-18 fails against the thematic 36.22-17! 11x22 37.26-21 +. (See also the note at 12.48-42.) If Black replaces 26...5-10 with 26...14-20 27.32x21 16x27, then after 28.33-29 24x33 29.38x29 22x24 30.31x11 12-17 31.11x22 18x27 32.42-37/43-38, with 32...13-18 33.43-38/42-37 18-22, he can integrate the tactical twist 34.37-32?? 27-31! 35.36x18 19-23 36.18x29 24x42 + into the position. In that case, the simple intermediate move 34.49-43! would be sufficient. For example, 34...2-7 35.37-32 7-11(?) 36.32x21 11-16(??) 37.38-33! 16x27 38.33-29 24x33 39.39x17 +.

Nevertheless, Black's very last survival chance lay in the recently identified line of play 26...5-1027.32x2116x2728.33-2924x3329.38x2922x2430.31x1112-1731.11x2218x27due to the fact that after 32.42-37he can, apart from the inadequate 2-7-11?!, also play 32....19-23!?33.43-3823-28!?
(see analysis diagram) 34.38-3334.49-43??13-18!28-32!?35.37x28Then, thanks to the unthreatened status of his outpost on 27, he does indeed have serious compensation for the lost piece. And it could even be—the situation is difficult to break down to its core—that White would be forced to settle for a draw with the strongest counterplay (however undeserved this might seem). One of the biggest setbacks is that Black, after 35....14-20!!(It seems, if I understand Kingsrow correctly, that there is an incredibly subtle difference between 35...14-20 and 35...10-15?) 36.39-3410-15!(only now) 37.44-3920-25!(the same) 38.49-432-7*39.28-23
39....7-12*(see analysis diagram)
40.23-1913-18!41.19x3018-23!despite a two-piece disadvantage (a disadvantage, moreover, to which even after 42.33-2942.30-248-13!23-28!43.29-2412-1844.24-199-14!45.19x1015x446.30-2418-23!there is no immediate end in sight!), he still manages to escape with a draw…

When I reviewed the analysis of Sijbrands-Beeke 1963 in the first months of 2024—written, as far as I can tell, 'somewhere' between 2014 and 2017—for any inaccuracies, I cursed the computer program that seemed determined to hinder me with this entirely new discovery. (And thereby forced me to adjust the tone of my argument at least somewhat.) But by now, I can live with it. This is thanks to an even newer discovery, this time one of my own. The discovery is that when in the previous analysis diagram piece 45 had been on field 50 (as it actually 'should' be, and what in earlier mentioned games like Koeperman-Sjtsjogoljev 1961, Rustenburg-Kolsloot 1975, or Sijbrands-Koot 1982 could have been a plausible scenario!), the simple trade 33.39-33!! 28x39 34.44x33 followed by 35.37-32 would indeed—and convincingly—have won!

Finally: I have no doubt that Beeke must have realized that the transition to a partie-Bonnard would only be of (very) temporary nature, and that the move 26...16-21 was actually nothing more than a postponement of the inevitable. 27.42-37...There were at least two other ways in which White could have broken through to a king (or at least to field 11 or 6) at the cost of one piece. For example, immediately 27.35-30 24x35 28.33-29 22x24 29.31x11 would have nearly mirrored the course of the game, with this difference: piece 37 is on 42, and piece 23 is still on 18. (This would also have allowed White to avoid the complicating possibility of 29...22x42, as discussed in the commentary on Beeke's 29...22x24!)
Furthermore, there was also 27.39-3418-2328.34-29!!23x3429.33-29!
as shown in the analysis diagram, a very strong alternative to consider.

Since Black must under no circumstances capture with 22, he is compelled to choose between the following two (virtually impossible) options:

1) 29...24x33 30.28x30 19-23 31.30-24!, leaving White in a winning position, regardless of whether Black continues with 31...13-18 32.44-39! 9-13 33.39-33! or 31...2-7 32.44-39! 7-11 33.24-20! (first this) 33...14x25 34.32-28 22x44 35.31x22 17x28 36.26x6 +.

2) 29...34x23 30.42-37! 22x42 31.31x11 42x31 32.36x16, and even after 32...12-17 33.11x22 2-7 34.26-21, and so on, White has a (decisively) winning wing attack in hand.

I do not rule out that, for reasons that will become clear in the next note, both alternatives might have been marginally more precise than the played move 27.42-37. However, the game move, which introduces the threat of 28.28-23! followed by 29/30.33-28 +, and thus makes 27...18-23 forced, also appears good enough. 27....18-23
(see diagram) 28.35-30!24x3529.33-29!22x24In combination with his next move, this is the most obvious defense available to Black. Nevertheless, 29...22x42,although ultimately also insufficient, would have been at least as tenacious. After all, there is still quite a bit to be done before White secures victory, as demonstrated by the following extended line of play originating from the position after 30.31x1123x34*31.37x48: 31....19-23(After 31...5-10 32.26x17 12x21 33.39x30 35x24 34.11-6 10-15, the computer recommends the remarkable plan 35.36-31!? 21-26 36.6-1!! 26x28 37.1-23! Even after 37...28-33 38.23-32! 13-18 39.43-39, White wins back one of the three sacrificed pieces, with the eventual promotion of the piece securing the victory!) 32.26x1712x2133.39x3035x2434.11-6Another idea is to not yet push the piece on 11 to 6 and instead first play 34.36-3121-2635.31-2721-26
(see analysis diagram) 35.43-38!(because it's too early for kinging (35.6-1? 23-28! and so on), White will need to be patient) 8-1236.49-43!14-1937.32-28!23x3238.38x2719-23(The history repeats itself) 39.27-22!(But now the enemy's traps are being gradually neutralized) 2-740.44-395-10(On immediately playing 40...9-14, 41.22-17!! 12x21 42.36-31!! 26x37 43.6-1 + decides the game.) 41.43-389-14(Now this is just barely possible because, in the event of 42.22-17 12x21 43.36-31 26x37 44.6-1, Black can follow up with the majority capture 44...24-29!! 45.1x33 [via 10 or 14] 45...37-41 =. However, White is in no rush:) 42.38-33
(see analysis diagram) 42....23-28(The best option: 42...10-15 and 42...14-20 both lose immediately to 43.33-28! 23x32 44.6-1 +, while 42...14-19 or 42...24-30 fall victim to the triple gambit 43.22-17! 12x21 44.36-31! 26x37 45.6-1, once again causing devastation.) 43.39-34!!(Once again, White is not afraid to make a bold statement.) 28x3044.6-113-18(The only defense against the terrible threat of 45.22-17 +) 45.22x1310-1524-29would allow White the time to decide the game with the advance 46.48-43!10-1547.43-39!for example, 29-3448.39-33and always 49.13-8+. The difference is that Black could now respond to 46.48-43 with 46...30-34. But White has an even better move:) 46.1-6!30-3447.6-28!24-2948.28x534-3949.5-37!
49....39-44Also 49...12-1850.13x2226-31*51.36x2739-44loses hopelessly after 52.45-4044x3553.22-1835-40(53...29-33 54.37-23!) 54.37-2840-4555.28-5029-3356.50x245-5057.18-13and so one. 50.45-40!44x3551.36-31!!(Without the help of the 'Marquis', White won't make it.) 7-11(still the toughest) 52.13-929-34(same) 53.37-46!(the only right moment for this standard maneuver) 26x3754.46x1635-4055.16-7!!And both after 55...40-45 56.7x40 45x34 57.9-3/4 and after 55...34-39 56.7x45 39-44 57.45-40! 44x35 58.9-3/4, White's new king reaches the blockade square 50 just in time! 30.31x11...
(see diagram)
30....5-10The Black player hopes to fend off the impending defeat with the trap 15/24. Although this hope will prove in vain, it does not mean that an alternative defense like 30...24-2931.26x1712x21could have offered greater chances of survival. For instance, White could have deprived his opponent of any serious counterplay with 32.37-31! 21-26 33.32-28!! (the introduction to a somewhat hidden 3x3 exchange) 33...26x37 34.39-33! 23x32 35.38x27! 29x38 36.43x41. But even just 32.11-6Is more than enough for the win. I would not have lingered on this any longer if this variant did not contain some spectacular possibilities that I simply cannot withhold from the reader.
The following could occur: 32....21-2633.39-3319-2434.33-2814-1935.28-22(on the way to square 17) 35....24-30(Thus, Black prevents 36.22-17? with 36...29-33! =. Note that 35...8-12 would have lost to the ingeniously witty 36.22-18!! 13x22 37.6-1! 2-7 38.1-6! 12-17 39.6-1! 7-11 40.38-33 +.) 36.43-39!
(See analysis diagram).

There are now at least two lines of play in which White, despite a—naturally temporary—deficit of no less than four pieces, will still win, namely: 1) 36....2-737.32-28!!23x3438.6-1(See analysis diagram) and now:
A)38....8-1239.37-31!26x3740.22-1712x2141.1x20+. B)38...7-11with the proverbial finishing blow 39.37-31!?26x3740.22-18!?13x2241.44-3934x4342.1x34x48x26x3x14x28x17x6(over eight Black pieces!). C)38...19-2439.1x14!(but not 39.1x25?34-39!!13-1940.14x28!29-3341.28x3934x4342.49x38with decisive piece gain.

[Click here to go to the second line of play 36... 30-34.]" 31.26x1712x2132.11-6...
32....21-26If 32...2-7 or 32...8-12 had been played, it would still have been too early for kinging (for example, 33.6-1? 8-12/2-7! 34.1-6?! 10-15! leading to the capture of the White king, even after 35.38/39-33 12-17! and so on), but 33.37-31! would have almost immediately won. That same intermediate move would also have been decisive in the case of 32...24-29: 33.37-31! 21-26 34.6-1! 26x28 35.38-32! 28x37 36.39-33 29x38 37.1x3+. And for 32...10-15, the fourth and final serious alternative to the text move, White would have played 33.36-31!. If Black responds to the threat of 34.31-26!+ with 33...21-26, White will use the same trick as later in the game, namely 34.6-1! and Black is without a decent tempo. 33.38-33!...Now, 33.36-31? would have been too slow due to 33...8-12! (34.6-1?? 24-29!) and on the next move 34...2-7!. However, the text move, which blocks the important square 29, deprives Black of this defensive option. 33....10-15
(see diagram)

After 33...2-7/8-12, White would have had time for 34.6-1! and 35.1-6+.

In the diagram position, however, Black is indeed ready for the neutralizing move 34...2-7, followed by 35...7-11, 36...8-12, and 37...13x2. It is therefore high time for the White player to execute the point of their previous move.
34.6-1!!...
Commentators with a more modest disposition might have been content with one exclamation mark, but I am in no way embarrassed to adorn the actual move with two exclamation marks. On one hand, there is the principle of the lack of tempo, which alone deserves to be acknowledged. But 34.6-1! is especially remarkable because of the other idea behind it: the realization that White has nothing to fear from the tactical counterstrike 34...26-31 35.1x20 31x42, because after 36.20-25! (see analysis diagram), the Black king will inevitably be captured, sometimes at the cost of just one piece! (One can verify this.)

Finally, I would like to point out— in defense of that double exclamation mark— that this winning concept is only possible thanks to the clearing of square 38 that has just occurred (33.38-33!): for example, with 39 on 38, the same plan would not have worked due to the following twist (33.39-33? 10-15! 34.6-1) 34...26-31! 35.1x20 31x42! 36.38x47 15x24 =. Noted! 34....35-40Also according to the computer, this would still be Black's best option. However, in that case, surrendering would also have been a serious consideration: there is no compensation for the lost piece, quite the opposite!

There’s something else to consider. One could say that Beeke has the 'misfortune' of facing an opponent who almost gets a boost when they are ahead by a piece. Because no matter what can be said about my play—no one could accuse me of lacking the skill or decisiveness to convert a middle-game position with an extra piece into a win, also when my opponent has some positional compensation. I am not exaggerating: even against Wiersma (Suikertoernooi 1970), Andreiko (2nd match game World Championship 1973), Tsjizjov (2nd match game World Championship 1989/1990), and Georgiev (European Championship 1999), despite the trembling knees that always accompanied the emotions involved, I would convert my material advantage in surprisingly smooth fashion! In the same breath, I must add that those times when I failed to do so (I’m thinking of the 20th and final match game against Tsjizjov or the duel with Aliev from the second-to-last round of the European Championship 1999), my failure was not without dramatic consequences... 35.1x2015x2436.45x348-1237.36-3113-1838.31-27...
38....9-13Even with a piece less, or perhaps precisely because of the disrupted material balance, Black remains condemned to passivity. Thus, 38...18-23(?), the only alternative to the text move, was not effective due to 39.33-29! 24x33 40.39x28. For example, 40...9-13 (40...14-20?? 41.27-21 +) 41.43-38!, and Black, who still cannot play 41...14-20(?), has insufficient defense against the threat of 38-33-29 +. 39.34-2914-2040.32-2820-2541.29x2025x1442.33-29...At this stage of the game, White's play almost plays itself.
42....14-2043.39-332-844.44-3919-2345.28x1913x2446.43-388-1347.38-3213-1948.32-2820-2549.29x2025x14
(see diagram) 50.27-22?!...But although this is, fortunately, not truly incorrect, it is by no means the easiest path to victory that White could have taken. A more logical and convincing move would have been 50.33-29!. And also the transition to a 3x2 endgame with 50.37-31!(First still like this) 26x3751.27-2218x2752.28-2319x2853.33x42would have won significantly faster. Just one example: 53....12-1854.42-3714-1955.37-3218-2256.39-3319-2357.33-29!!23x3458.49-44with double opposition. 50....18x2751.28-2319x2852.33x3112-18It was also worth considering 52...14-1953.39-3419-24in order to deny White access to square 29. However, Black would not have achieved a draw with this, as evidenced by the continuation 54.31-2712-1855.49-43!(only like this) 18-2356.27-22!(same) 24-2957.34-3029-3358.30-24!
(for the fourth consecutive time, the only move that leads to a win!; see analysis diagram) 58....23-28(as 58...23-29 loses without any resistance after 59.22-17/18! followed by kinging on 1) 59.24-20!28x1760.20-1417-2261.14-1022-2762.10-4!26-3163.37x2627-3264.4-27!+. 53.39-3414-1954.34-2919-2355.29-2423-28Or 55...18-2256.49-43!22-28*57.31-27!28-3358.27-22!with the same position as in the last analysis diagram. But 61 years later, I raise the question with appropriate restraint (after all, I don't want to offend anyone...) as to whether White actually calculated this sequence at the time: why, then, first 53.39-34 and 54.34-29 instead of playing 53/54.31-27 immediately? 56.31-27...
(see diagram)
56....28-33?!This significantly simplifies the win. Relatively tougher was 56...18-23!?where White would have had to choose between, on one hand, (once again) 57.49-43! 28-33 58.27-22! and so on (see above), and on the other hand 57.24-20In this last case, the following could occur: A)23-2958.27-22!(after first 58.20-14 29-34, White must ultimately still play this move) 28x1759.20-1429-3460.49-4417-2261.14-9!(absolutely the only) 22-2862.9-3!(same: White must be able to respond to 62...28-33 with 63.3-25! +) 26-3163.37x2628-3264.3-20(or also -25) 64....34-3965.44x3332-3766.20-14!37-4267.14-37+. B)57...28-33(even now, White can only win in one way:) 58.20-14!23-2959.14-9!29-3460.9-3!34-40
(see analysis diagram)
61.3-25!!61.3-17?26-31!40-4562.49-44!!with a stylish endgame position: after 33-3963.44x33(or 63.25x43/48) the Black king on square 42 is captured!
57.24-19!...By first cutting off the enemy piece on square 18, White gains a full tempo compared to the variant "B" just discussed. With that, the last bit of tension in the position has disappeared. 57....33-3858.19-1418-2359.14-10...
(see diagram)

With 59...23-28, both the childishly simple 60.27-22 28x17 61.10-4 and the tactical 60.10-5 28-32 61.37x28 38-42 62.27-21! 26x17 63.28-22 + win. But the winning plan provided by the computer should also not go unmentioned: 60.10-4 28-32 61.37x28 38-42, and now only 62.27-21!! 26x17 63.49-43!! +. Beeke, of course, did not require further proof of the endgame: he resigned.

Thus, at the age of 13, I claimed my first scalp on an ordinary weekday evening in June 1963. My victory over Beeke naturally sparked great enthusiasm in me. What’s more, I was in such a state of euphoria that I can easily imagine that very little of the math lesson planned for the next day (at the time, I had a daily attendance requirement at the penitentiary institution known as Hervormd Lyceum West) stuck with me. I must admit, though, that generally speaking, there wasn’t a need for a winning game against Beeke (or anyone else) for that to happen… As mentioned: fourteen other often steadfast national championship finalists would be added by December 1965. After that, I began slowly but surely pushing my limits by making lists—I had secretly started this in mid-1965—of victories against reigning world champions, former world champions, and, of course, any possible additions to the collection, later world champions. "But that's another story," as the tavern owner from the delightful film "Irma la Douce" (1963) would say.