---

1952 Great Britain v Netherlands, 31 May - 1 June, Kingsley Hotel, Holborn, London

Bd	Great Britain	Rd 1	Rd 2	Netherlands
1b	Ernst Ludwig Klein	½-½		Dr Max Euwe
1w	David Vincent Hooper		0-1
2w	C Hugh O'D Alexander	0-1	½-½	Theo D van Scheltinga
3b	Harry Golombek	0-1	0-1	Jan Hein Donner
4w	Reginald Joseph Broadbent	½-½	1-0	Haije Kramer
5b	P Stuart Milner-Barry	0-1	½-½	Nicolaas Cortlever
6w	Theodore Henry Tylor	0-1	0-1	Willem Jan Mühring
7b	Jonathan Penrose	½-½	1-0	Carel Benjamin van den Berg
8w	William Albert Fairhurst	½-½	½-½	Hans Bouwmeester
9b	William Ritson Morry	0-1	½-½	Johan Teunis Barendregt
10w	Frank Parr	½-½	0-1	(Frans) Louis F Stumpers
		2½-7½	4-6
		6½-13½
	Rowena Mary Bruce	0-1	½-½	Fenny Heemskerk

CHESS, July 1952, Vol.17/202, ppn 191-192

HOLLAND'S CONVINCING WIN [presumably written by editor Baruch H Wood]

When the seventh match England v. Holland started on May 31st, the teams were dead level with an aggregate score of 60-60. This balance was violently disturbed, for England lost 6½-13½. Only that great fighter Broadbent and our young star Jonathan Penrose managed to get the better of their individual opponents; Fairhurst held his own and five others managed to get one draw. England has even more organised chess than Holland these days; our team were at home, whereas our visitors had had little sleep the night before.

Let us salute the Dutchmen on a splendid achievement!

[scores]

Why did Euwe play two different opponents?

This is what happened. Commenting on the first day's play in the Sunday Times of June 1st, Bruce Hayden wrote: "With an overwhelming game, he was showing the onlookers the difference in style between a grand master and a master when ... he lost the exchange by an oversight." Though we note that the Amsterdam Telegraaf supports this as a true report, it seems a little harsh to us (see the game below).

(Above) The article in the Sunday Times which so infuriated Klein

Klein saw deeply into a complicated situation. Even had Euwe not taken the pawn which lost him the exchange, playing, for instance, 30 Bf6, how is he to answer 30...Nc4... ? du Mont in The Field suggests 30 Qh6 Nxg7 31 Bf6 Ne6 32 g5 Nb7 33 Rf4, with the unanswerable threat 34 Qxh7+ Kxh7 35 Rh4+, etc, but this begs a lot of questions. Klein's reaction, on reading the report, was the extraordinary one of telephoning Broadbent, a few minutes before the second half of the match started, to inform him that he refused to play any further.

Klein, incidentally, is not recognised by the International Chess Federation as a master.

The reasoning by which the rest of the team is penalised for the alleged misdeeds of the Sunday Times is far from clear.

---

BCM, July 1952, ppn 196-199

THE ANGLO-DUTCH MATCH

By A. H. Trott

Holland decisively beat England 131-61 in this match played at the Kingsley Hotel, London, on May 31st and June 1st. Detailed results—[above]

Of recent years there has been a definite advance in the strength of Holland compared with England, as the following table shows; England's defeat in this, the seventh match of the new series, being the heaviest to date.

Match No.	Date	Gt Britain	Netherlands
1	1937	9½	10½
2	1938	10½	9½
3	1939	10	10
4	1947	12½	7½
5	1948	10	10
6	1949	7½	12½
7	1952	6½	13½

n.b. I've added some detail (scores of the 1930s matches) to the BCM original and also changed references to countries from "England" and "Holland" - JS

There appears to be two main reasons for the Dutch team's improvement. Firstly there is the much hard practice they have been getting of late in international matches. Secondly there is the study made by them of Dr. Euwe's publication Losbladige Schaakberichten (Chess Archives), which deals with openings, middle-game themes, etc. i was much impressed by the high regard in which this is held by our visitors.

At the same time as the main event a match was played between the Lady Champions of the two countries.

Round 1

The impressive Dutch victory, without loss of a game, was still more remarkable because they had been travelling all the night before! On the whole nothing seemed to go right for the English team—but Klein was lucky to draw.

1. Euwe-Klein, ½-½

It was unwise of Klein to play an old-fashioned type of opening, of which his great opponent is a past master.

As Dr. Euwe afterwards pointed out, 30 Q—R 6! wins, e.g. 30 .... Kt—Q B 5; 31 Kt—B 4!, KtxKt; 32 RxKt, after which I can see nothing better for Black than 32 ..Kt—K6; 33 P—Kt 5!, and if 33 .... Kt x R; 34 Qx P ch!, KxQ; 35 R—R 4ch and mate in two. A very lucky escape for Klein.

[Klein's response to these comments, and Trott's further annotations, were published in BCM, September 1952, ppn 25-251. The salient points may be found in the notes to Euwe-Klein in the download - JS]

2. Alexander-van Scheltinga, 0-1

White's attack never really got going—Black played the ending in copybook style.

3. Donner-Golombek, 1-0

Black should have played 13 . . ., B—Q 2 but Donner's ingenious method of winning a pawn was hard to foresee. Smartly played by Donner.

4. Broadbent-Kramer, ½-½

A steadily played Ruy Lopez, Tchigorin Variation, leading after exchanges to a draw in 48 moves.

5. Cortlever-Milner-Barry, 1-0

Black sacrificed a pawn for strong pressure in a Scotch Four Knights' Game but at the crucial moment failed to seize his chance of making a combination, regaining the pawn with the better game. Thereafter Cortlever's extra pawn "came good."

6. Tylor-Mühring, 0-1

Tylor got a bad game early on in a Catalan and decided to give up his King's Bishop's pawn rather than shut in his Queen's Bishop. The sacrifice was unsound due to Tyior's exposed King position, which led to the loss of more material.

7. van den Berg-Penrose, ½-½

A well played game with neither side taking chances.

8. Fairhurst-Bouwmeester, ½-½

Fairhurst, early on, obtained the attack and for some time looked like winning, but Bouwmeester's careful defence held the position.

9. Barendregt-Morry, 1-0

After tricky play a drawn ending of Knight and pawns versus Knight and pawns was reached. Black played very badly and allowed White to transpose into a King and pawn ending easily won for him.

10. Parr-Stumpers, ½-½

This was a highly unorthodox game which Parr did well to draw after getting a bad ending.

Miss Heemskerk-Mrs. Bruce, 1-0

White Castled on the Queen's side, Black on the King's. Thereafter Miss Heem-skerk's King's-side play was not met with the correct defence. She played simply and well.

Round 2

Although the English team did better they never at any time looked like winning the round. Klein failed to appear and his place was taken by Hooper, the English reserve.

1. Hooper-Euwe, 0-1

Hooper played aggressively from the first and sacrificed a piece (apparently not quite correctly) on move 14. Euwe had by no means an easy win (see Games Section).

2. van Scheltinga-Alexander, ½-½

The game started off in lively enough style with a Dutch Defence but exchanges soon took place, leaving neither player with better than a draw.

3. Golombek-Donner, 0-1

After a difficult game a drawn position was reached, but as so often happens the first move after the time control (Golombek's sealed move) was a blunder. Here it led to loss of a piece and Golombek resigned at once.

4. Kramer-Broadbent, 0-1

Broadbent played the opening and middle-game in fine style and came out with the better of a complex ending. During a time scramble he made a blunder which should have lost but Kramer did not see it either! Broadbent seized his chance of simplification, winning a pawn, leaving him with a Knight and four pawns versus a Bishop and three pawns. Owing to time shortage the game was adjudicated by Dr. Euwe.

5. Milner-Barry-Cortlever, ½-½

An unusual variation of the Vienna Opening led to an involved game with the Kings castled on opposite sides but neither attack came to much and a draw resulted.

6. Muhring-Tylor, 1-0

Tylor got into trouble in the opening and soon lost a pawn and was left with four isolated pawns in an ending as well. Another pawn soon fell. . . .

7. Penrose-van den Berg, 1-0

Penrose played a very nice attacking game (see Games Section) probably the best of the match. In this match he played better chess than any other member of the English team.

8. Bouwmeester-Fairhurst, ½-½

Bouwmeester played Nimzowitsch's Attack and did obtain some pressure which was, however, well contained by Fairhurst, who eventually won a pawn in a Rook and pawn ending—he then allowed a draw by repetition in a probably drawn position anyway.

9. Morry-Barendregt, ½-½

White obtained much the better of the opening but did not make the most of it, and after a hard fight allowed his opponent to draw.

10. Stumpers-Parr, 1-0

As will be seen Parr played the opening badly (his 12th move is particularly bad), Stumpers taking full advantage of this.

Mrs. Bruce-Miss Heemskerk, ½-½

Mrs. Bruce played very ingeniously for a King's-side attack, offering pawn sacrifices, but her opponent defended well and at the critical moment Mrs. Bruce had no better than to force a draw by perpetual check.

As usual the heaviest part of the organizational burden was carried by Mr. J. H. van Meurs. He has done a tremendous amount of work in organizing this series of Anglo-Dutch matches and much credit is due to him.

I should be failing in my duty if I did not comment upon the unsuitability of the playing room. Before going further let me make it clear that Mr. van Meurs was not responsible for booking the room. I have rarely seen worse playing conditions, there being insufficient ventilation, lack of space, and no daylight available. The room is no doubt excellent for its normal function—but not for a chess match.

To end on a happier note—the whole match was played in an atmosphere of the utmost friendliness.

---

CHESS, August 1952, Vol.12/203, ppn 218-219 (only the final paragraph is relevant to the GB v Netherlands match - JS)

THE RADIO MATCH [Letter by E Klein to the Editor, CHESS Magazine]

Dear Sir,

Under the heading "The Radio Match—The Facts," you go on to give your readers "some more facts" which evidently emanate from the B.B.C. who have an extremely guilty conscience and who have given you a garbled, tendentious and incomplete version of what has happened.

The only criticism, and a very unjustified one, which can be levelled against me is that I agreed to play the game in the first place—in ignorance of what I was letting myself in for. Had I known of Mr. Fairhurst's experience, or had the B.B.C., or the B.C.F. for that matter, been a little franker with me, I never would have played at all.

I very nearly discontinued play before the second broadcast and only agreed to continue after I received a written undertaking that no planning of this match was going to be done in future without my agreement. One result of this was, anyway, that the public had a weekly diagram and the moves in the Radio Times. The B.B.C. knew at the same time that I felt unable to carry on this match on top of my job and that they would have to pay me enough to enable me to take leave from my normal work. The puny offer they made in exchange entailed in addition my signing away my complete copyright and agreeing to an unlimited number of broadcasts for the fees you mention. When, after three weeks of negotiations, their only further offer was to drop these ridiculous clauses and offer me 5 guineas for every additional broadcast, I informed them that I was going to discontinue the game in a week's time, so that they had time to inform the public. I moreover offered Norway, by cable and letter, two days before the end, to play this game out, a fact which you mention casually. It was turned down by Norway without any reason.

You appear to suggest that I had a lost game at that stage. I am of exactly the opposite opinion. At any rate, resigning at this stage would have been little removed from fraudulent evasion of the contract. I preferred to break it openly and without subterfuge on the grounds that it was an intolerable burden which would have continued for several months more.

Your paragraph about Barda's request for a break, etc., is also substantially misleading. Norway, on the 8th May, a day on which I had to think about my move, rang the B.B.C. to say that Barda was seriously ill and wanted to interrupt the game for an unspecified period. In view of an agreement between the B.B.C. and myself, in the presence of Broadbent, before the match began, that the game would be abandoned without result in the event of either player falling ill, I suggested that the game should be abandoned, and the B.B.C. agreed after considering further that a prolonged break was likely to kill all public interest. These views were put to Norway and the same evening I received a telephone call from the Norwegian Broadcasting Company informing me blandly that Mr. Barda was well enough to carry on. In view of all this unnecessary fuss, what was more natural than to ask for cable confirmation, particularly in view of the precedent this kind of thing was likely to create?

As regards my request for a Whitsun break, this was made by me to the B.B.C. on the 5th April, nearly two months before the event, and could be duly planned in billing the moves, etc.

Now to the Dutch match. It is a credit to you that you are dubious of the wild claims that are made about this game with Euwe. It is too fantastic for words that there should be irresponsible and incompetent journalists ready to claim that I was lost and then go on to prove it with such infantile nonsense as 30 Qh6 which is easily refuted by 30...Qb7 31 Bf6 or 31 Bxd6 Bc6, and it is all the more galling to see the public misinformed when it was I, in fact, who missed a win, under extreme time pressure, by 38...Kxg7. And it is for this reason that I put on record my public protest by refusing to play a second round, and when doing so I gave Mr. Broadbent 4½ hours—and not, as you claim, a few minutes—notice of my refusal.

(Signed) E. KLEIN.

London, W.1, 7th June, 1952

---

Record of GB v Netherlands matches

---

File Updated

Date	Notes
2 June 2024	First uploaded as a PGN file.
25 September 2025	Viewer, results and report added. I've also appended the 1952 Klein-Barda game, broadcast by the BBC and Norwegian state radio as it came to a conclusion shortly before the Britain-Netherlands match and might have had some bearing on the later match's outcome.