Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

The Botvinnik
Semi-Slav
Steffen Pedersen
[e)AI~IBIITI

First published in the UK by Gambit Publications Ltd 2000
Copyright © Gambit Publications Ltd 2000
The right of Steffen Pedersen to be identified as the author of this work has been
asserted in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
All rights reserved. This book is sold subject to the condition that it shall not, by
way of trade or otherwise, be lent, re-sold, hired out or otherwise circulated in
any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published and without a
similar condition including this condition being imposed on the subsequent purchaser.
A copy of the British Library Cataloguing in Publication data is available from
the British Library.
ISBN 1 901983269
DISTRIBUTION:
Worldwide (except USA): Central Books Ltd, 99 Wallis Rd, London E9 5LN
Tel +44 (0)20 89864854 Fax +44 (0)208533 5821
e-mail: orders@Centralbooks.com
USA: BHB International, Inc., 41 Monroe Turnpike, Trumbull, CT 06611, USA.
For all other enquiries (including a full list of all Gambit Chess titles) please
contact the publishers, Gambit Publications Ltd, 69 Masbro Rd, Kensington,
London W14 OLS.
Fax +44 (0)207371 1477. E-mail Murray@gambitchess.freeserve.co.uk
Or visit the GAMBIT web site at http://www.gambitchess.co.uk
Edited by Graham Burgess
Typeset by John Nunn
Printed in Great Britain by Redwood Books, Trowbridge, Wilts.
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Gambit Publications Ltd
Managing Director: GM Murray Chandler
Chess Director: GM John Nunn
Editorial Director: FM Graham Burgess
Assistant Editor: GM John Emms
German Editor: WPM Petra Nunn

Contents
Symbols
Bibliography
Foreword
Part One: The Botvinnik System (5 i.g5 dxc4)
1 Introduction to the Botvinnik System
2 The Main Line: 17 a3
3 16 .. :iVa6 and 16 .. :iVd6
4 Uhlmann's 16 l:tb1
5 Black's 13th Move Alternatives
6 Ideas with .. :iVa5
7 Move-orders and Various Deviations
8 1O ... i.e7
9 Alatortsev' s 9 ... ttJd5? !
10 White Gambits: 9 exf6!?
11 7 a4
12 Early Deviations (6 e3 and 6 a4)
4
5
6
7
10
38
44
58
78
86
106
116
127
141
151
Part Two: The Moscow Variation (5 i.g5 h6)
13 Introduction to the Moscow Variation 156
14 The Anti-Moscow Variation: 6 il.h4!? 157
15 The Main Line: 6 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 7 e3 ttJd7 8 i.d3 dxc4 181
16 Black's 8th Move Alternatives 203
17 Deviations from the Main Line 210
18 Odds and Ends 221
Index of Variations 222

Symbols
+ check
++ double check
# checkmate
!! brilliant move
! good move
!? interesting move
?! dubious move
? bad move
?? blunder
+- White is winning
± White is much better
;!; White is slightly better
= equal position
+ Black is slightly better
=+= Black is much better
-+ Black is winning
Ch championship
Cht team championship
Wch world championship
Ech European Championship
Ct candidates event
IZ interzonal event
Z zonal event
OL olympiad
ECC European Clubs Cup
qual qualifying event
tt team tournament
jr junior event
wom women's event
mem memorial event
rpd rapidplay game
corr. correspondence game
1-0 the game ends in a win for White
Ih-1f2 the game ends in a draw
0-1 the game ends in a win for Black
(n) nth match game
(D) see next diagram

Bibliography
Egon Varnusz: Semi-Slawisch II, Reinhold Dreier, 1992
Aleksander Beliavsky and Adrian Mikha1chishin: D44,
Sahovski Informator, 1993
Peter Wells: The Complete Semi-Slav, Batsford, 1994
Alexei Shirov, Fire on Board, Cadogan, 1997
Aleksandar Matanovic (editor-in-chief): ECO D, 2nd and 3rd editions,
Sahovski Informator, 1987 and 1998 respectively
Matthew Sadler: The Semi-Slav, Chess Press/Cadogan, 1998
Graham Burgess, John Nunn and John Emms: The Mammoth Book of the
World's Greatest Chess Games, Robinson, 1998
John Nunn, Graham Burgess, John Emms and Joe Gallagher:
Nunn's Chess Openings, GambitlEveryman, 1999
Informators 1-75
New In Chess Yearbooks 1-52
ChessBase Mega Database '99
The Week In Chess 1-261
... and various magazines

Foreword
There has been an explosion of interest in the Semi-Slav during the last ten years
and there is no sign yet that this intends to stop, although the focus has changed
somewhat.
This is the first of two books on the Semi-Slav. It covers the Botvinnik System
and the Moscow Variation, i.e. 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 liJf3 liJf6 4 liJc3 e6 S .i.gS and
then either S ... dxc4 or S ... h6. While the Botvinnik System is in my opinion one of
the most fascinating of all openings, I must admit that the Moscow Variation appeared
a little dull to me when it became hugely popular in the mid-1990s as a
safe and extremely solid option to avoid the complexity arising from the
Botvinnik. But just when it seemed that White was constantly hitting his head
against a brick wall, the 'unsound' 6 .i.h4 was livened up and now produces some
of the most spectacular games in the whole Semi-Slav.
Writing this book has been a real challenge. It has required lengthy analyses,
which have had to be checked very carefully. In these 'Fritzy' times, it is fairly
easy to check analysis to a reasonable degree of accuracy, but with the highly
complicated positions which make up most of this book, chess engines are often
not that trustworthy, or to be more exact need far more time and have to be 'taken
down the road' all the way. Naturally, various chess engines have been of great
help during my work, but when analysing such complicated positions as arise in
the Botvinnik System or the Anti-Moscow Variation, intuition counts for a lot.
For example, I wonder whether a computer will ever be able to find Sergei
Ivanov's amazing 22 .. J~hS!! to be found in the introduction to Chapter 2.
This book has been written during one of the happiest times of my life; our
second daughter was born and I managed my first GM norm (actually it is the
second but the first has now expired).
Last but not least I would like to thank all the people who have helped out but
in particular Mona for all her support during the project and Graham Burgess
for his patience during the writing process, and for numerous suggestions and
improvements.
Steffen Pedersen, Odense
November 1999

1 Introduction to the Botvinnik
System
The Botvinnik System arises after the
moves 1 d4 dS 2 c4 c6 3 liJf3 liJf6 4
liJc3 e6 S j,gS dxc4 (D) and is in my
opinion one of the most complex of all
opening variations.
w
short tour and hence far from complete,
but should give a small picture
of what this is all about. I have also
chosen to examine more concrete
themes in the introductions to some of
the chapters.
Endings
The Botvinnik System tends to lead to
highly unbalanced endings, which are
either clearly in favour of one side or
the other, or else are almost impossible
to assess. A quick glance at the
most common pawn-structure should
suggest why:
White's pawn sacrifice is only temporary
since after 6 e4 he threatens not
only to regain his pawn but also to play
7 e5. Hence in the main line, 6 ... bS 7
eS h6 8 j,h4 gS 9 liJxgS hxgS 10
j,xgSliJbd7 11 exf6 or 11 g3 and later
exf6, it is in fact Black who is the
gambiteer.
In this chapter, I shall deal briefly
with the various themes occurring
most frequently throughout the first
part of this book. This will only be a
As both sides have a large majority
on one wing, it is only natural that
endings often turn into pawn races.

8 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
Only White has a passed pawn for the
moment, but Black can create one
rather quickly with ... b4 followed by
. .. c3, and this might turn out to be even
more dangerous than White's h-pawn.
Indeed, often it is White's f-pawn that
turns out to cause real concern - that
is, if White is able to win the f7-pawn.
Sacrifices
All manner of sacrifices, by both White
and Black, abound in the Botvinnik
System. Often the goal is the initiative,
but a common motivation is to
gain positional compensation, in particular
the liberation of pawn majorities.
Here are two of my personal
favourites:
This truly astonishing move solves
all Black's problems. After 23 'ij'xhS
cxb2 Black obtains two far-advanced
passed pawns and great counterplay .
This can all be found in Chapter 2.
w
Another example from Chapter 2:
B
Aseev - Se.lvanov
St Petersburg 1997
White's last move was 22 i.g5-
f4!?, which appears to place Black in
grave peril due to the threat of 23 l:taS.
However ...
22 ... l:thS!!
Ivanchuk - Shirov
Wijk aan Zee 1996
21 iig7!
This fantastic queen sacrifice was
a piece of over-the-board inspiration
from the ever-creative Ukrainian. After
21...i.xg7 22 fxg7 lIg8 23 lLlxcS
White only has two minor pieces for
the queen but excellent positional
compensation and a highly dangerous
passed pawn.
Open files
Black experiences, as is normal in
chess, the most awkward problems in
the middlegame. This is mainly due to
his far more exposed king position;
White often launches an attack by

INTRODUCTION TO THE BOTVINNIK SYSTEM 9
opening files on the queenside against
Black's king. For example:
B
Outposts
Now that we have acquainted ourselves
with the most common structures, it is
natural to consider whether Black can
bring a knight to d3 - and indeed the
d3-square almost screams out to be
occupied by a black knight.
The above position arose quite frequently
in the 1980s and the early
1990s but is now hardly seen any
more. Black cannot really avoid White
opening the c-file either by simply
winning thec4-pawn or by sacrificing
a piece. Black's main continuation is
20 ... ltJc6 21 i.xd5 ':'xd5 22 ':'xc4,
which is also a subject of Chapter 2. It
is true that this leaves White's g5-
bishop en prise, but due to Black's
poor coordination and vulnerable king,
White will most likely win it back.
The disadvantage of bringing a
knight to d3 is that it can easily get undermined
(with, for example, b3 at
some point) and also that the black
king might miss the knight's protection.
Nevertheless, it is an option Black
should bear in mind, and White should
look out for it too.

2 The Main Line: 17 a3
We shall dive straight in to the complexities
of the main line of the Botvinnik
System. Later chapters shall discuss
earlier deviations for both sides.
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 tLlc3
e6 5 j.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 j.h4
g5 9 ttJxg5 hxg5 10 j.xg5 tLlbd7 11
exf6 j.b712 g3 'ii'b613 i-g2 c514 d5
0-0-0150-0 b416 tLla4 'ifb517 a3(D)
B
B
I believe this may still be considered
the main line, although both
sides, Black in particular, have investigated
earlier deviations. In fact, at the
time of writing, the whole line is more
alive than ever. How the main line
arises has briefly been discussed in the
previous chapter, so I will not repeat
myself, but move on to showing what I
consider one of the most amazing
opening ideas in many years ...
Aseev - Se.lvanov
St Petersburg 1997
White has just played 22 j.g5-f4!?,
intending 23 l:.a5 'ifxb4 24 j.c7+!,
winning. I had analysed this position a
few years prior to this game, and was
convinced that White was more or less
winning after 22 j.f4!? However, GM
Sergei Ivanov, undoubtedly with a
great desire for making this line work,
had prepared the truly astonishing
22 ... l:.h5!!' The idea is that after 23
'ifxh5 cxb2 24l:.adl cxb4! 25 j.c7+
cJi>c6 26 'ii'xb5+ cJi>xb5 27 j.xd8 c3 28
l:.xd7 (D), although White is overwhelmingly
ahead in material, Black's
queens ide pawns constitute a lot of
counterplay, and so far this position is
considered fine for Black.

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 11
B
Endings
The main line of the Botvinnik System
is full of astounding ideas such as the
one above, and if the game has not
been decided before then, it can lead
to some fascinating endgames. No
wonder, when one considers how the
pawns are spread out. Take a look at
the following very common structure:
However, since White's f-pawns are
doubled, and the pawns not as far advanced,
it takes quite a long time for
White to create another passed pawn,
while this task is somewhat simpler
for Black. Hence many endings are
quite promising for Black. Just recall
the Aseev-Ivanov encounter above!
Queen sacrifices
One very common theme in the main
line of the Botvinnik System sees
White sacrificing his queen for various
amounts of material, but with the
main objective of gaining a strong po- .
sitional grip. My favourite one is definitely
the following:
w
Ivanchuk - Shirov
Wijk aan Zee 1996
Black has a massive 4 vs 1 on the
queenside, while the same applies for
White on the kings ide, but there is
only one passed pawn for each side.
White's a4-knight is threatened,
and exchanging on c5 would concede
control of the d4-square. However,
Ivanchuk found the imaginative 21
'ii'g7! .ixg7 22 fxg7 :g8 23 lOxc5,
when White can claim compensation

12 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
in the form of a very dangerous pawn
on g7 and superior minor pieces. Sadler
is of the opinion that Black should
now play 23 .. J:txg7! 24 ~d4! f5 25
tDxd7!? (25 ~h3 was tried in B.Lalic­
Wilson, London 1996 but is not very
convincing) 25 .. .lhd7 26 l:txa7, when
the position is rather unclear, but
probably slightly easier for White to
play.
then his attack is often successful, as
Black's king is left almost naked.
White frequently sacrifices a piece to
bring this about. An example:
w
A more common queen sacrifice
arises (after the 17 moves that characterise
this chapter) in the line 17 ... tDe5
(or 17 ... tDb8) 18 axb4 cxb4 19 'iid4
tDc6 20 dxc6! 1:txd4 21 cxb7+ (D).
B
Once more, in return for a queen
White only has two pieces plus a strong
passed pawn, this time on b7. However,
here theory is more established,
and in White's favour.
The sensitive c-file
Black's main worry is usually White's
attacking chances in the middlegame.
If White manages to open the c-file,
Maksimenko - Scherbakov
Aalborg 1993
Black is very close to consolidating,
so drastic measures are required for
White. In this theoretically important
position, White now played 21 ~xd5
l:txd5 22l:txc4, which is the only way
to justify White's set-up. Then Black's
best is the probably slightly inferior
ending following 22 ... .:.xg5 23 'iid4
'ifi>b8 24 lhc6 lhg3+ 25 fxg3 'ii'xc6
26 l:td 1 ~h6 but instead Black went
for the rather provocative 22 ... ~d7?!
and was duly punished: 23 l:tacl (23
l:tdl!? has also been suggested but I
find the game continuation convincing
enough) 23 .. J:txg5 24 'ii'e4 tDd8!?
(this is the most consistent, but objectively
Black should prefer 24 ... .:.d5 25
l:txc6 'iixc6 26 l:txc6 ~xc6 27 b3,
when White is only slightly better) 25

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 13
'ii'a8! e8 26 l:tc8l:tdS 27 'ilixa7l:thh5
(other defences have also been tried,
but without success) 28 tDb6 l:td2 29
l:t8c7! ~d6 30 l:te7+ ~f8 and now the
simplest way to win would have been
31l:txf7+!.
The outpost on d3
In many cases a passed d-pawn is
Black's main asset but one should not
ignore the possibility of creating an
outpost on d3. If a knight or rook lodged
on this square cannot be removed, it
will remain a thorn in White's side. I
will provide you with two examples:
one that went well for Black and one
that should not have done!
c3 24 tDxc3 bxc3 25 l:txc3+ as played,
for example, by Kasparov against Tal)
23 ... b7! 24 ~e3, 24 ... l:td3! contains
the annoying threat 25 .. .'tlr'c6. Following
25 f4 l:txh2!? 26 'it>xh2 l:txe3 27
'ilidl l:td3 28 'ilihl+ tDf3+ 29 'it>g2
"ir'f5, Black had a very strong attack.
w
B
Koopmans - Van der Muysenberg
corr. 1992
White has just played 22 l:tfc1,
threatening the c4-pawn. Black now
has a choice between defending it with
22 ... tDa5 or 22 ... tDe5; the latter is superior,
aiming also for the d3-square.
Then after 23 ~xa7?! (better is 23 b3
Maksimenko - Scherbakov
Berlin 1993
Black has just occupied the d3-
square and, as discussed, the assessment
depends on whether Black can
maintain the outpost. White logically
starts undermining the knight:
19 axb4 cxb4 20 b3! exd5 21 'ilig4+
'it>b8
N ow, rather than 22 ~e3? d4! 23
~xd4 ~xg2 24 ~xa7+ b7 25 ~xg2
'iVc6+! 26 f3 'it>xa7, which netted Black
a piece in the game, Mikhalchishin
showed that White should play 22
'iVd4!, forcing Black to block the gl-a7
diagonal with 22 ... ~c5, and thus allowing
23 tDxc5 'iVxc5 24 ~e3 'iVxd4

14 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLA V
25 .txd4 a6 26 .l:f.fbl followed by .tn,
eventually removing the intruding
knight.
Quick Summary
The main line of the Botvinnik System,
starting with 17 a3, is in my opinion
one of the most fascinating openings
to analyse. The rich variety of possibilities
for both sides makes one simply
want to delve deeper and deeper
into the complexity, only to realize that
it is almost impossible to get nearer a
correct assessment.
17 ... 4.Je5 (Line A) and 17 ... 4.Jb8
(Line B) are currently disregarded by
theory. 17 ... 4.Je5 is suspect in view of
the promising queen sacrifice 18 axb4
cxb4 19 'ili'd4 4.Jc6 20 dxc6! .l:f.xd4 21
cxb7+. Since Black seems to have little
choice after 17 ... 4.Jb8 18 axb4 cxb4
19 'ili'd4 but to play 19 ... 4.Jc6, the same
applies to Line B.
However, 17 ... exd5 !? (Line C), has
experienced a revival since it was discovered
that Black has so many hidden
resources after 18 axb4 d4!? The
main line is currently the amazing 19
.txb7+ ~xb7 20 4.Jc3!? dxc3 21
'ii'd5+ ~b6 22 .tf4 .l:f.h5! !, but I have
the feeling that White needs to look
between moves 19 and 22 for an improvement.
The Theory of the Main
Line, 17 a3
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 4.Jf3 tDf6 4 4.Jc3 e6 5
.tg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .th4 g5 9
4.Jxg5 hxg5 10 .txg5 4.Jbd7 11 exf6
.tb7 12 g3 'ili'b6 13 .tg2 c5 14 d5
0-0-0150-0 b4 16 4.Ja4 ~b5 17 a3
Now:
A: 17 ... 4.Je5 14
B: 17 ... 4.Jb8 20
C: 17 ... exd5 24
Others:
a) 17 ... .th6 ought to be too slow
in this particular position, but White
failed to react correctly in V.Muller­
SchOn, corr. 1986. Following 18 .te3?!
exd5 19 .txd5? 4.Je5 20 'ili'h5 ':'xd5
White was already in great trouble,
and after 21 axb4 Black concluded energetically:
21....txe3 22 'ili'xh8+ ':'d8
23 'ili'h3+ ~b8 24 fxe3 'ili'c6 25 e4
'it'xe4 26 4.Jxc5 'ili'd4+ 27 ':'f2 4.Jf3+ 28
~n 'it'dl+ 29 .l:f.xdl .l:f.xdl+ 30 ~e2
.l:f.el# (0-1). However, White should
try either 18 h4 or 18 .txh6 ':'xh6 19
dxe6, when, for example, 19 ... .txg2
20 exd7+ .l:f.xd7 21 'it'cllooks good for
White.
b) 17 ... .txd5 18 .txd5 exd5 (alternatively,
18 ... 4.Je5 19 .txe6+ fxe6 20
'tie2 ±) 19 'it'xd5 'it'xa4 20 axb4 4.Jb6
21 'it'xf7 'it'd7 22 ':'xa7! gives White
plenty of play for the sacrificed piece,
according to Korchnoi, and I wholly
agree with this; for example, 22 ... 'it'xf7
23 ':'xf7 cxb4 24 .te3 ':'d7 (24 ... 4.Jd5
25 ':'al!) 25 .l:f.xd7 4.Jxd7 26 .l:f.cl.
A)
17 ... 4.Je5 (D)
This is a very logical move. While
we have seen that Black cannot regain

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 15
w
his pawn immediately (with, for example,
17 ... .txd5), Black unveils the
scope of the rook on d8, thus preparing
to capture the d5-pawn. Furthermore,
the knight moves forward, intending
at some stage to place itself at the aggressive
post on d3. This all sounds
very plausible for Black, but the reason
that 17 ... lDe5 is rarely seen any
more is a very promising positional
queen sacrifice which, unfortunately,
can hardly be avoided.
18 axb4
The main alternative is 18 'ii'e2,
with the following options:
a) 18 ... .txd5 is completely unsound:
19 'ii'xe5 .txg2 20 ~xg2 .l:td5
21 'iWe3 'iWxa4 22 axb4 'iWc6 23 'iWe4
'ii'b7 24 h4 ± Fahnenschmidt-Sinz,
Baden-Baden 1990.
b) 18 ... .td6 19 f4 (Wegner-M.Miiller,
Bundesliga 1993/4 showed why
White cannot leave the knight in peace
for too long: 19 axb4 cxb4 20 b3 exd5
21 lIfcl ~b8 22 h4l:the8 23 'iVfllDd3
24 lid 1 .te5 25 l:tab 1 .td4 26 lId2 .ta6
with a fantastic position) 19 ... lDd3 20
dxe6 .txg2 21 'ii'xg2 fxe6 22 axb4
cxb4 23 'iWa8+ .tb8 24 b3 'ii'd5 (24 ... c3
25 'ii'e4 was very good for White in
Arbakov-Gorelov, Belgorod 1989) 25
'ii'xd5 exd5 26 l:tadl is clearly better
for White according to Mikhalchishin,
but Wells queries this assessment and
proposes 26 ... a5!? with the idea that
27 bxc4?! is met by 27 ... .ta7+ followed
by ... dxc4, when Black's queenside
pawns look menacing enough to
provide adequate counterplay.
c) 18 ... lDd3 and then:
c 1) 19 dxe6 .txg2 20 ~xg2 (20
e7?! is enticing but not quite enough
here: 20 ... .txfl 21 'ii'g4+ 'ii'd7 22
'ii'xd7+ ~xd7 23 exd8'iW+ ~xd8 24
l:txfl ~c7 and Black's active position
counts more than White's extra pawn;
e.g., 25 lIdl ~c6 26 axb4 cxb4 27 b3
~b5 28 .te3 cxb3 29 :'xd3 ~xa4,
etc.) 20 ... 'ii'c6+ 21 f3 fxe6 with an unclear
position; White's position is optically
better in view of Black's many
weaknesses but Black is very active,
particularly due to the knight on d3.
c2) 19 axb4 cxb4 20 b3! exd5 (this
is the only try; 20 ... .txd5? loses to 21
bxc4 i.xc4 22 .l:tfc1!, while 20 ... c3?
21 l:tfdl! also wins for White) 21
'ii' g4+ ~b8 (D) and now White can
try:
c21) 22 .te3? d4! 23 .txd4 (23
bxc4 'ii'h5! 24 'iWxh5 lIxh5 25 .td2
.txg2 26 ~xg2 ~b7 is good for Black
in view of White's misplaced knight)
23 ... .txg2 24 .txa7+ ~b7 25 ~xg2
'iVc6+! 26 f3 ~xa7 + Maksimenko­
Scherbakov, Berlin 1993.

16 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLA V
w
l:tc2 +) 24 ... lDd7 25 i.f2 lDxf6 +
Av.Bykhovsky-Haimovich, Tel-Aviv
1998.
19 ... lDc6
This position also often occurs via
the move-order 17 ... lDb8 18 axb4
cxb4 19 it'd4 lDc6.
20 dxc6! ':xd4 21 cxb7+ (D)
c22) 22 it'd4! i.c5 (it is a pity to
offer an exchange of the a4-knight, but
it is essential to block the gl-a7 diagonal;
22 ... i.h6 23 i.xh6 l:txh6 24 bxc4
'irxc4 25 'ire3 is winning for White)
23 lDxc5 'irxc5 24 i.e3 it'xd4 25
i.xd4 a6 26 l:tfbl followed by i.f1,
with a clear advantage - Mikhalchishin.
Black can try 26 ... c3 but White
has a choice of good continuations;
even 27 i.f1 c2 28 i.xd3 cxbl 'ir+ 29
l:[xbl looks good for White in view of
his pair of very strong bishops combined
with his passed h-pawn.
18 ... cxb4 19 'ii'd4
The double attack on the e5-knight
and the a7-pawn limits Black's options.
There seems to be an effective
response to these threats in the reply
19 ... lDc6 but as we shall see, White
has something up his sleeve.
19 it'e2? is worse due to 19 ... :'xd5!
20 i.e3 (20 i.xd5? it'xd5 21 f3lDxf3+
22 :'xf3 'irxf3 23 it'xf3 i.xf3 +)
20 ... l:td3 21 f4 i.xg2 22 it'xg2 it'b7
23 'ii'xb7+ 'ili'xb7 24 i.c5 (or 24 fxe5
1::txe3 25 .:tfdl 'ili'c6 26 :'d4 l:te2 27 h4
B
White has two pieces and a faradvanced
passed pawn to compensate
for the queen, which in this case is
more than sufficient compensation.
21 ... 'iIi'c7
The alternative is 21...'iIi'b8. There
seem to be both pros and cons for this
move, but the general opinion is that it
is inferior to the text-move. After 22
i.e3 Black has several rather unappealing
options:
a) 22 ... ':d5 23 i.xa7+! 'ittxb7 transposes
to note 'c2' to Black's 22nd
move.
b) 22 ... i.c5? 23 lDxc5 'ii'xc5 24
l:ta6 l:thd8 25 ':c6! is very good for
White, but after 25 ... 'ire5 26 i.xd4
'ii'xd4 27l:tcl ':d5 28 l:t6xc4 it'xb2 29

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 17
~xd5 exd5 30 lIc7 b3 one has to find
31 ~g2!, which creates the crude but
very effective threat of 32 lIlc6 followed
by lIxf7. 31... 'Wa3 is then the
only move. Black needs to keep attacking
the posterior rook, thus being
able to meet 32lIlc6 with 32 ... 'Wa4!.
However, 32 lIc8+ ~xb7 33 lIlc7+
~b6 34lIxf7 looks winning for White.
White will simply exchange his f6-
pawn for Black's b-pawn, converting
to a winning rooks versus queen ending;
e.g., 34 .. :ti'd6 (what else?) 35
lIff8 b2 36 l:tb8+ ~a6 37 lIfc8 'Wxf6
38l:tc2, etc.
c) 22 ... e5 is, as against 21...'itc7,
the best try, but Black is then better off
with the king on c7. 23 b3! and now:
el) 23 ... ~h6 24 bxc4 l:txc4 25
~xa7+ ~c7 26 ~b6+ ~d7 27l:tadl+
'ite6 28 ~h3+ ~xf6 29l:td8! +-.
c2) 23 ... ~d6 24 bxc4 lIxc4 25
~xa7+ ~c7 26l:tfc1l:txcl + 27lIxc1 +
~d7 28 .!Db6+ ~e6 29 lIc6 and White
wins.
c3) 23 ... cxb3 24l:tfcl ~d6 25 ~xd4
exd4 26 lIc6 d3 27 lIacl 'Wxb7 28
l:txd6 'ii'b5 29 .!Db2 l:tc8 30 lIel a5 31
.!Dxd3 a4 32 l:td5 'Wb6 33 .!De5 and
White eventually won in Meissner­
Skomorokhin, Brno 1993.
c4) 23 ... c3 24 lIadl! ~d6!? (or
24 ... ~h6?! 25 ~xd4 exd4 26 l:txd4
c2?! 27 l:tc4 cl'ii' 28lIfxc1 ~xcl 29
l:txc1 lId8 30 .!Dc5 a5 31 h4

18 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
c) 22 ... :d5 23 i.xa7 and now:
c1) 23 ... 'iIi'xb7?! 24lDb6 +-.
c2) 23 .. .'~xb7 24lZJb6 i.h6 (after
24 ... i.d6 25 l:tfd1! l:thh5 26 l:tdc1!
White picks up the c-pawn with a continuing
attack) 25lZJxd5 exdS 26 :fe1!
ltd8 27 i.d4 l:td7 28 :eS +- Meissner-Sinz,
Altensteig 1993.
c3) 23 ... i.d6 24 lZJb6 i.c5! 25
lZJxd5+ exd5 was for some time believed
to be Black's best saving try.
First of all, I am not sure whether
Krausser's assessment of the line 26
bS'iIi'+ :xbS 27 i.xbS+ 'ili'xbS 2S
i.xd5 i.xf2+ (;l;;) isn't too modest. I
have a feeling that White should be
able to get his rooks aimed against
Black's c-pawn. If that can be done
without allowing a perpetual check,
the endgame is won for White. However,
this is probably not even relevant
since White plays the much stronger
26 i.xc5! 'iWxc5 27 l:taS! l:tbS (forced)
2S l:td1 and now:
c31) 2S ... c3 29ltxd5 'iWb6 30 lhbS
'ili'xbS 31 bxc3 b3 (31...bxc3 32 i.e4)
32 :e5 'iWdS 33 i.e4 b2 34 ~g2, winning.
c32) Nor does 28 ... :'xb7 work for
Black: 29 l:txd5 'iWc6 (29 ... 'iWb6 30
l:tadS!) 30 :ddS 'iWxf6 31 l:tdc8+ 'ili'b6
32 i.xb7 'ili'xb7 33 l:tab8+ 'ili'a6 34
l:txb4 and White wins.
23lZJc3! (D)
23 b3 c3 is less clear. Then we have:
a) 24 l:tad1 was Krausser's initial
suggestion but this has been put seriously
into question: 24 ... l:txd1 25 l:txd1
i.h6! (note that this would not be
possible with Black's king on bS) 26
i.c5 c2 27 i.d6+ ~d7 2S i.h3+ ~eS
29 l:te1 'iWxb7 30 f4 'iWdS 31 i.xe5 'iWdl
0-1 Maiwald-Shabalov, Neu Isenburg
1992.
b) 24 :fcl! is Salov's improvement;
he analyses 24 ... i.c5! 25 lZJxc3
bxc3 26 l:txc3 :hdS 27 i.f3! l:tbS
(27 ... :Sd5 2S i.xd5 l:txd5 29 :ac1
~xb7 30 l:txc5 l:txc5 31 :xc5 'iWxb3
32 l:txe5 with a clear advantage to
White since Black cannot immediately
play 32 ... aS as there is no perpetual
check after 33 :'xaS 'iWbl + 34 'ili'g2
'iWe4+ 35 ~h3) 2S l:tac1 ~b6 29 :xc5
(since Black can hardly move a piece,
29 h4 deserves serious consideration)
29 ... 'iWxc5 30l:txc5 ~xc5 31 'ili'f1 'ili'b4
32 i.xd4 exd4 33 'ili'e2, and now after
33 ... 'iIi'c3! things would not be that
clear.
B
23 ..• bxc3
Black has to accept the sacrifice as
otherwise White would simply play
l:txa7.
24 bxc3 i.c5

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 19
Salov's suggested improvement
upon the game Salov-Illescas, Madrid
1993, which went 24 ... :d6? 25 :abl!
a6 26l:hb5 axb5 27 :al l:td8 28 .te4
with a winning advantage for White.
25 cxd4
Salov's idea was that 25 :fbl
':dl+!? 26 l:txdl.txe3 27 fxe3 would
create weaknesses in White's shelter.
Whether this has any importance at all
is doubtful since Kamsky's continuation
is the real test of Black's 24th
move.
25 ... .txd4 26 l:ttbl 'ifc5 27 ':a6
(D)
B
27 ... l:tb8?!
Kramnik must have missed White's
next move in his preparation. The alternatives
were, however, not very appealing:
a) 27 ... .txe3 28 ':c6+ 'ifxc6 29
.txc6 ± Kramnik.
b) Ftacnik gives 27 ... c3 as the only
try, but thinks White will win the rook
ending after 28 .txd4 exd4 (28 ... 11hd4
29 l:tc6+ ~d7 30 ':c8 c2 31 l:tn lli'b2
321'hh8 el'if 33 l:txcl 'ii'xcl + 34.tn
wins) 29 l:tc6+ 'ii'xc6 30 .txc6 c2
(30 ... 'iii;>xc6 31 b8'if l:txb8 32 l:txb8

20 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SIA V
'ti'xh2+ 37 'ifrf3 ':xb7 38 ~xe5+ ':b6
39 ~c4+ 'ifrd7 40 l:txa7+ 'iitc8 41
l:tc7+ 1-0.
B)
17 ••. ltlb8 18 axb4 cxb4 191i'g4
If White wants to take some kind
of advantage of Black's move-order
(17 ... ltlb8 instead of 17 ... ltle5), this is
the way to do it. From g4 the queen
pins the e6-pawn against the black
king, thus making ... exd5 illegal, and
pressurizes c4, which can be further
attacked by ':fc 1. Both this and 19
'ti'd4 look very promising for White
(which explains Black's preference for
17 ... exd5Iately). Some other options
are:
a) 19 'ti'd4ltlc6 transposes to Line
A, since 19 ... ':xd5? 20 'it'xa7! ltld721
i.f4 is definitely good for White.
Given the highly favourable assessment
of Line A, this already casts a
dark shadow over 17 ... ltlb8.
b) 19 i.e3!? i.xd5 20 i.xdS l::txd5
21 'ti'e2 ltlc6 22 ':fc1 (D) is also very
interesting.
B
Attempting to open the c-file is one
of White's main strategies. Black must
now react to the threat of his c-pawn:
bl) 22 ... ltlaS?! 23 b3! c3 24ltlxc3
bxc3 25 ':xc3+ 'ifrd7 26 'iWc2 i.d6 27
':c1 'it'b7 28 b4! 'it'xb4 (28... l::txh2? 29
'it'a4+! +- Cvitan-Marjanovic, Yugoslav
Ch (Vrbas) 1982) 29 ':bl 'iWg4 30
i.xa7! and now Kasparov has shown,
with a couple of nice wins, that the
continuing attack against the black
king is worth more than the sacrificed
piece:
bll) 30 ... e5 31 'iWa2! ':dl+?! (the
alternative 31... 'it'f5 !? is a more prudent
defence according to Kasparov,
although he thinks that White maintains
an initiative with "32 l::tb7+!
ltlxb7 33 'it'xd5 'it'bl + 34 'ifrg2 ltld8
35 l:tb3 'iWf5 36 h4 'iWxf6 37 ':b6!"; I
am not sure whether this is entirely
clear, and would prefer 32 ':el!? 'iite6
33 ':dl e4 34 f3!) 32l::txdl 'it'xdl+ 33
'ifrg2 'iWh5 34 'it'a4+! ~e6 35 h4! and
Black is not able to hold his pieces
together, Kasparov-Timoshchenko,
USSR Ch (Frunze) 1981.
b12) 30 ... i.e5 31 l::tc5! (31 f3?
i.d4+ 32 i.xd4 'it'xd4+ 33 ~hl ~d6!
+) 31...l::txc5 32 i.xc5! ltlc6 33 'it'd3+!
~c8 34 ':d I! ltlb8 35 ':c I! +- Kasparov-Dorfman,
USSR Ch (Frunze) 1981.
This game was played after Kasparov-Timoshchenko
- 30 ... i.e5 was a
prepared 'improvement'.
b2) 22 ... ~b7? 23 ':xc4 ltlaS 24
b3! (the key move; Black cannot take
the rook on c4, and White is thus soon
able to utilize the semi-open a-file and

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 21
the open c-file) 24 ... Jtd6 (24 ... tLlxb3?
25'if'c2! +-) 25'if'a2! a6 (25 ... :tdh5 is
a tougher defence, but White is clearly
better in the rook ending following 26
tLlc5+ lhc5 27 llxc5 i.xc5 28 'if'xa5
'if'xa5 29 lha5 Jtxe3 30 fxe3 - Anikaev)
26 Jtc5 ..txc5 27 1:txc5 .:txc5 28
tLlxc5+ 'if'xc5 29'if'xa5 'iixa5 30.:txa5
'it'b6 31 lle5!, and compared to the
previous bracket, White's pawnstructure
is here much better, and he
was able to win comfortably in Anikaev-Sveshnikov,
Volgodonsk 1981.
b3) 22 ... c3 23 'ji'xb5 llxb5 24
tLlxc3! (24 bxc3 b3! is fine for Black)
24 ... bxc3 25 llxc3 'it'd7 26 lla6 tLld8
27 llxa7+ ~e8 28 ':c8 ± Rashkovsky-Timoshchenko,
USSR Ch 1981.
b4) 22 ... tLle5! (D), as introduced
by Tal, is the best defence and the
cause of White's neglect of this line
lately.
w
The knight is obviously more active
on e5, and it also avoids the danger of
being caught in trouble on the semiopen
a-file. White has now tried:
b41) 23 i.xa7?! ~b7! 24 Jte3 (24
tLlb6 c3! is very good for Black)
24 ... lld3! and Black is clearly better.
For example:
b41l) 25 tLlb6!? ':xe3! 26 'ji'xe3
Jtc5 27 'ji'e4+ 'it'xb6.
b412) 25 f41lxh2! 26 ~xh2 ':xe3
27 'ji'dllld3 28 'ji'hl + tLlf3+ 29 ~g2
'ji'd5 with a strong attack, Koopmans­
Van der Muysenberg, corr. 1992.
b413) 25 lIn Jtd6 26 f4 tLlg4 27
'ji'xg41lxe3 28 :Udl 'ji'c6! and again
Black's attacking chances are to be
preferred, Goldenberg-Meleghegyi,
corr. 1986.
b42) 23 b3 c3 24 tLlxc3 bxc3 25
llxc3+ ~b8 26 'ji'c2 (26 Jtxa7+ ~b7
27 'if'e4 'if'b4! 28 'if'c2 Jtd6 is much
better for Black according to Kasparov,
with the following easy-to-miss
trap in mind: 29 .:ta4? tLlf3+ 30 ':xf3
'ji'el+ 31 ~g2 .:txh2+!) 26 ... Jtd6 27
..txa7+ ~b7 28 b4 tLlc6 29 Jte3 Jte5
30 1:txc6 Jtxal 31 .:tc7+ ~b8 = Kasparov-Tal,
Moscow tt 1983.
19 ... Jtxd5
19 ... llxd5 20 .:tfel! c3 21 bxc3
llxg5 22 cxb4+ ~d8 23 'ji'd4+ ':d5 24
'ji'xa7 tLlc6 25 'ji'b6+ 'ii'xb6 26 tLlxb6
± Dvoirys-Sveshnikov, Sochi 1983.
20 .:tec1 tLlc6
I must confess to not having properly
analysed this before now, and
looking at it afresh, it dawns on me
that something has gone wrong for
Black if his best is to use two tempi
( ... tLlc6-b8-c6) on exchanging White's
d-pawn for his own c-pawn. However,
the alternatives are even worse, and

22 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
the continuation for White is not that
simple.
21 .txd5 l:.xd5 22l:.xc4 (D)
22 ~xc4? l:.d1+ is embarrassing.
B
22 ... l:.xg5
Black has briefly been flirting with
22 ... ~d7, but in my opinion the textmove
is still the most reliable.
a) 22 ... 'ii;lb7. In view of the brief
fascination for 22 ... ~d7, it is strange
that this other king move has only
been tested once, as far as I know.
Black threatens ... tZ:\e5 and still targets
the bishop on g5. Now we have:
al) 23 lhc6? ~xc6 24 .te3 .td6
was far from convincing for White in
Chia Keng San-Foo Hsiang Ming, Singapore
1998.
a2) 23l:.acl (the point of 22 ... b7 28

THE MAIN liNE: 17 a3 23
as there is no good defence to 31l:[e1 +.
Afterwards, however, I.Sokolov suggested
that White has nothing more
than a perpetual check after 28 ... 'fi a5 !
29 .l:txd8+ 'fixd8 30 l:tc8 .l:td5 31
.l:txd8+.l:txd8 32 'iib5+l:[d7 33 'iib8+.
b12) 25 "ii'a8!. With this amazing
move White combines several threats
and Black cannot parry all of them:
b121) 25 ... "ii'a5 26 l:td4+ ltd5 27
:'xd5+ "ii'xd5 (27 ... exd5 28 'fic8+~d6
29 liJc5 +-) 28 "ii'xa7+ ~e8 29 liJb6
'iib5 30 l:td1! and White wins. There
is mate in a few moves starting with a
sacrifice on d8.
b122) 25 ... "ii'xa4? 26 l:td4+ l:[d5 27
"ii'c8+ ~e8 28 .l:txd5 exd5 29 l:[e1+
mates.
b123) 25 ... ~e8 is the best defence,
but White is winning after 26 .l:tc8 :'d5
27 "ii'xa7 (D).
The threat is the artistic liJb6-a8-
c7+. Here are a few lines to illustrate
how bad things really are:
b1231) 27 ... ltd7 28 liJb6!! lha7?
29 :'xd8+ ~xd8 30 :'c8#.
b1232) 27 ... :'h6 28 liJb6 :'d2 (or
28 .. Jbf6 29 liJxd5 "ii'xd5 30 :'xdS+
'iixd8 31 "ii'a4+ +-) 29 liJaS ltd7? 30
liJc7+ :'xc7 31 :'xd8+ 1-0 Lazarev­
Dgebuadze, Werfen 1993 .
b1233) 27 ... .l:thh5 is no better. Maksimenko-Scherbakov,
Aalborg 1993
now continued 28liJb6 l:td2? 29 :'8c7!
(this is possible as Black is not attacking
the f6-pawn) 29 ... .lld6 30 l:[e7+
~f8, and now the simplest would have
been 31l:[xf7+!.
b1234) 27 ... 'fid7 28 :'xd8+! "ii'xd8
29 liJb6 l:td1+ and now 30 ~g2? is
mistakenly given as winning for White
by Maksimenko, but I do not see anything
convincing for White after if
Black replies 30 ... "ii'xb6!. However,
do not despair, as White wins with 30
.l:txdl! 'fixd1+ 31 ~g2 .llc5 (forced)
32 'fia8+ 'fid8 33 "ii'c6+ ~f8 34
'fixc5+ ~e8 35 'fib5+ ~f8 36 "ii'xb4+
~e8 37 "ii'b5+ ..ti>f8 38 "ii'c5+ ~e8 39
'fic6+ ~f8 40 b4!; e.g., 40 ... lth5 41
liJd7+ ~g8 42 b5 l::td5 43 "ii'c4! :'g5
(43 ... 'fia8 44 'fie4 'fib7 45 liJc5 "ii'a8
46 b6 'fif8 47 b7 +-) 44 h4 ':g6 45
'fic6, etc.
b2) 23 l::tdl!? was Knaak's idea,
tested in a game by Piket, and while it
may well be rather strong, I find the
above analysis convincing enough, so
I will restrict myself to giving the
Piket game: 23 ... liJe5 24ltc5! liJxg4
(24 ... .txc5 25 lhd5+ ~e8 26 ':xe5
.llxt2+ 27 ~xt2 "ii'xe5 28 h4 and White
wins) 25 ':dxd5+ exd5 26 :'xb5 with a
clear advantage for White, Piket­
Nalbandian, Biel IZ 1993.

24 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
23 'ii'd4 'itb8 24 ':'xc6 Ibg3+ 25
fxg3 'ii'xc6 26 ltd1 .i.h6 (D)
w
The assessment of this endgame is
very important for the entire variation
with 19 'fig4, but despite several outings
in tournament play, an established
conclusion has not been drawn.
Both kings are exposed, which makes
it difficult for either side to launch a
direct attack, since the counterattack
would be swift. White can net a pawn
on b4 but this opens a line for Black's
rook, and perhaps more critically
wastes time. Therefore the best is to
activate the knight.
27 ttJc5
27 'ii'xb4+ ~a8 28 'fid4 was suggested
by Knaak, but it is not clear
what White should do after 28 ... ':'b8!'
In Vikulov-Naivelt, USSR corr. Ch
1991, White quickly went astray with
29 h4 (nor does 29 ttJcS ':'bS 30 b4
':'xb4 31 'ii'eS ltb8 appear clear)
29 ... ltb3! 30~h2? 'fic2+ 31 'ith3.i.f4!
32 'ii'xf4 'ii'xdl 33 ttJc3 'ii'd3 34 hS
':'xb2 and Black soon won.
27 ... ~a8 28 'ii'e4 'ii'xe4 29 ttJxe4 as
Black has reasonable counterplay
in the endgame, Yusupov-Tukmakov,
Leningrad 1987.
C}
17 ... exd518 axb4 (D)
18 ltel has received comparatively
little interest but is not without venom.
White now threatens .i.xdS as Black
has been deprived of the reply ... ttJeS.
Hence the only move is 18 ... d4, when
White can try:
a) 19 axb4 transposes to note 'a' to
White's 19th move in Line C2.
b) 19 i.xb7+ 'itxb7 20 axb4 cxb4
21 'fixd4 (21 'fif3+? 'fic6 22 'fifS .i.d6
was fine for Black in Beliavsky-Lutz,
Munich 1994; White has no obvious
attack, while Black has managed to
solve most of his usual problems)
21...'fixgS 22 'fixc4 ':'c8 23 'ii'xf7 ':'c7
with an unclear position according to
Lutz. I would say Black's chances are
quite promising. White will most
likely lose the f6-pawn, while his king
looks as exposed as Black's.

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 25
There are now two main continuations
for Black. The first used to be the
• automatic' repl y, but realizing White's
firm control of d4, attention has now
been drawn towards the interesting
pawn sacrifice 18 ... d4. Black then
achieves his principal aim in the main
line of the Botvinnik System, namely
to get his d-pawn rolling.
Cl: 18 ... cxb4 25
C2: 18 ... d4!? 29
el)
18 ... cxb4 (D)
w
Black has re-established the material
balance, resulting in a lopsided
pawn-structure where White has a
great majority on the kingside, but only
has 1 vs 4 on the queenside. Black's
main trump is his passed d-pawn but
his lack of control over the d4-square
makes its advance far from easy.
Moreover, as long as it remains on d5,
the light-squared bishop is hemmed
in. Hence White should seek to blockade
the d-pawn, and this can be done
with moves like ~d4 and/or 3t.e3, simultaneously
creating a threat against
the shy but very important a-pawn .
This pawn plays a major role in the
defence of Black's king, and therefore
needs coverage. This makes me
think of another, very important, factor,
namely the safety ofthe two kings.
While White's monarch enjoys an almost
unspoiled shelter, Black's king
is much more vulnerable to attacks
with, for example, a queen on g4 and
bishop on f4. Furthermore, White can
try to open the queenside with ~(t)cl
and b3.
19 i.e3
This retreat serves several functions.
First, it is a strong positional move,
taking further control of the d4-square
and attacking the a7-pawn. Second,
White walks out of possible tricks involving
attacks against the unprotected
bishop on g5. While this is in
my opinion the most logical move,
White has also tried other moves:
a) 191i'd4?! occupies d4 with the
wrong piece. The only game I know of
with this continuation is Nikolac­
Kishnev, Munich 1993, and although
the experiment went well for White, it
is not worth repeating. Black has very
easy play after 19 .. . ltJc5 20 b3 tiJxb3
211i'xa7 (the ·point'). Now, rather than
21...tiJxal?, as in the game, Black can
play Beliavsky's suggestion 21...3t.c5
22 tiJxc5 ~xc5, or Fritz's even stronger
2l...~d6 22 i.f4 ~a6!'
b) 19 .l:tel i.h6!? 20 i.xh6 ~xh6
21 ~d4 ~xf6 22 i.h3 ~d6 (22 ... .l:tc6

26 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
23 :e7 :a6 24 b3 looks good for
White) 23 ttJc5 'ii'b6 24 lied 1 (24
l:te7!?) 24 ... ~c7 25 SLxd7 lI8xd7 26
ttJxd7 'ii'xd4 27 lIxd4 ~xd7 (D) actually
gave Black enough compensation
to draw in the game Stean-Rivas, Marbella
Z 1982.
The point is that White cannot maintain
his blockade of the d-pawn after
Black plays ... ~c6-c5. This is one of
those typical totally unclear endings
where material does not seem to matter
much. What counts is that Black's
queenside pawns are so dangerous
that White does not have enough time
to turn his h-pawn to account. Just in
case you do not believe me, here is the
rest of the game: 28 h4 ~c6 29 h5 "'c5
30 l:th4 l:th6 31 g4 d4 32 g5 l:th8 33
lIxa7 SLc6 34 l:ta5+ SLb5 (the pawns
are now becoming threatening enough
to oblige White to liquidate into a
drawn rook ending) 35 l:txd4 'ifi'xd4 36
l:txb5 l:txh5 37 l:txb4 liz-liz.
c) 19 h4 has been used as a surprise
weapon a few times, but should hardly
cause much inconvenience after correct
play from Black. The idea is to defend
the g5-bishop, and Black must
now also reckon with the possibility of
a future SLh3+. Black can now choose
between:
c1) 19 ... ttJe5 20 l:te1 SLd6 (20 ... tiJd3
21 lIe7! SLxe7 22 fxe7 lId6 23 'iWg4+
"'b8 24 'iWd4 l:te8 25 SLfl l:ta6 26 b3!
is clearly better for White according to
Dokhoian; I wholly agree with this -
although Black has a material advantage,
all his pieces are tied to defensive
duties) 21 'ti'd4 ttJc6 22 'iWxd5 'iWxd5
23 SLxd5 ttJd4 24 lIad1! ± Yusupov­
Dokhoian, Bundesliga 199213.
c2) 19 ... ttJc520'iWg4+?! (this move
has widely been condemned, and 20
l:tel!? suggested as an improvement)
20 ... 'ti'd7! 21 'ii'xd7+ "'xd7 22 ttJxc5+
SLxc5 23 l:ta5 "'c6 24 SLe3 SLb6 and
Black was already much better in
Kolev-Van Wely, Moscow OL 1994.
d) 19 'ii'g4!? d4 (19 ... SLd6!?) 20
SLxb7+ "'xb7 21 'ii'e4+ 'iWc6 22 'iWxd4
SLd6 23 l:tfe1 lIde8 24 l:txe8 lIxe8 25
SLe3 SLb8 26 'ii'xd7+ 'ii'xd7 27 ttJc5+
'ifi'c8 28 ttJxd7 "'xd7 29 l:ta4 a5 30
lIxa5 SLe5 with counterplay, which
was even enough to win for Black in
Zarubin-Andrianov, USSR 1982.
19 ... ttJc5
19 ... ttJe5 20 'ii'd4 ttJc6 21 'ti'g4+
l:td7 22 :fdi ± P.Nikolic-Westerinen,
Esbjerg 1982.
20 'ii'g4+
20 ttJxc5 SLxc5 21 'ti' g4+ "'b8 22
'iWf4+ "'a8 23 'fIc7 allows Black an
easy draw with 23 ... l:tc8 24 'ii'xf7 lIhfS

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 2'1
25 fig7 :g8 26 fih7 :h8 27 fig7
1/2_1/2 Kharitonov-Dorfman, Vol godonsk
1981. White can avoid the repetition
but this means that the queen has
to leave the 7th rank, thus allowing
Black's d-pawn to move forward.
20 .. J:td7
Black soon ends up in trouble following
20 .. /.ii'b8? 21 fid4! lLIxa4 22
fixa7+

28 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SU V
d) 23 ... d4 is based on a tactical
oversight: 24 i..xb7+ lhb7 25 ltJxb7
'iWb6 (25 ... ~xb7 26 i..xd4 a5 27 l:tfe1
+-) 26 i..xd4!! (this is probably what
Shirov had missed; the combination of
two rooks and a knight is in the following
playa deadly attacking force
against the queen, while the rook is
held up by a single pawn) 26 ... 'iWxd4
27 ':'fd1 'iWxb2 (27 ... 'iWxd1+ 28 ':'xd1
rJ;>xb7 29 l:td4 lhg7 30 ':'xc4 a5 31
':'f4! ~b6 32 h4 ~b5 33 b3 is a winning
rook ending for White, as Black
cannot activate his rook and it is impossible
to create a passed pawn since
... a4 is met by lH5+; 27 ... 'iWxg7 28
l:txa7 ~b8 29 ':'da1 lIe8 30 ltJd6 lie 1 +
31 lIxe1 ~xa7 32 ltJxc4 also gives
White a large endgame advantage) 28
ltJd6+ ~b8 29 lIdbl 'iWxg7 (attempts
to hold on to the b-pawn also fail:
29 ... 'ii'c3 is met by 30 ':'xa7! lIxg7 31
l:tb7+ ~a8 32 l:.7xb4 and 29 ... 'iWd2 by
30 ltJxc4 'iWc3 31 l:.a4! b3 32 ltJa5,
eventually picking up the pawn) 30
l:.xb4+ ~c7 31 l:.a6 l:.b8 32 l:.xa7+
~xd6 33 l:.xb8 'iWg4 34 l:td8+ ~c6 35
l:.a1 1-0 Ivanchuk-Shirov, Wijk aan
Zee 1996.
Returning to the position after
23 ... l:txg7 (D):
24i..d4!
It is best that White prevents Black
from creating counterplay with ... d4.
A few examples to show why:
a) 24 i..h3 f5! (24 ... i..c6 25 lIxa7
would be very good for White) 25
i..xf5 d4!? 26 i..xd4 l:.gf7 (Burgess
mentions 26 ... 'ii'c6 27ltJxb7 rJ;>xb7 28
w
l:.xa7+ ~b8 29 l:.xd7 l:.xd7 30 i..e5+
'iitb7 31 ':'e 1 i), "retaining definite
counterchances" according to Ivanchuk,
and this looks quite right; e.g.,
27 i..g4 i..f3 (27 ... 'iWc6 is similar to
26 ... 'iWc6; for example, 28ltJxb7 ~xb7
29 ':'xa7+ ~b8 30 ':'xd7 ':'xd7 31
i..e5+ 'iitb7 32 i..xd7 'iWxd7 33 f4 and
White is better) 28 ltJxd7 i..xg4 29
ltJe5 'iWd5 and something seems to
have gone wrong for White.
b) 24l:lxa7 and now:
bl) 24 ... d4!? 25ltJxd7 (25 i..xb7+
lhb7 26 ltJxb7 'iWb6! is good for
Black) 25 ... i..xg2 26 i..xd4 i..xfl 27
ltJb6+ ~b8 28ltJd7+ ~c8 29ltJb6+ is
a forced draw.
b2) 24 .. J:tc7 is interesting and can
lead to a fascinating position; e.g., 25
ltJxb7 lIxb7 26 l:.a8+ l:.b8 27 i..h3+
~d8 28 l:.fal l:.xa8 29 l:.xa8+ ~e7 30
l:.a7+ 'iitf6 31 i..d4+ ~g6 32 i..d7!?
'iWb8 33 l:.a6+ ~h7 34 i..f5+ l:.g6
(34 ... ~g8 35 l:tc6) 35 h4 ~h6 36
i..e3+ ~g7 37 i..d4+ ~h6 38 i..e3+
with a perpetual check unless Black
risks 38 .. .'~h5. I am sorry to break off

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 29
at this very unclear point, but I am sure
I could spend countless hours trying to
find out whether White can weave a
mating-net or not. I will leave it up to
you to find out.
24 ... f5 25 lL\xd7!?
B.Lalic-Wilson, London 1996 continued
25 i.h3 l::tgf7 26 l::txa7 l::tc7 27
lL\e6l::tce7 (27 ... l::tc6? 2S lL\g5 l::tfS 29
l::tfa1 is good for White; e.g., 29 ... l::ta6?
30 l::t 1 xa6 .txa6 31l::taS+ +- Lalit) 2S
lL\g5 'iifeS! 29 lL\xf7 'iifxf7 30 l::tfa1
'ii'h5 31 .tg2 f4 32 l::t7a5 f3 33 .tn
and now White would have been in
trouble after 33 ... l::te4!.
25 .•. l::txd7 26 l::txa7
White's position is somewhat easier
to play, according to Sadler, although
still very unclear.
C2)
IS ... d4!? (D)
w
This inventive move was first seen
in the game Sakaev-Van Wely, Moscow
OL 1994, which had an abrupt
finish, as it was agreed drawn after 19
i.xb7+. I remember setting about to
analyse the position, and found the
number of hidden possibilities amazing.
The move is a very direct way of
trying to avoid the problems arising
when Black cedes control of the d4-
square (as in Line C1).
19 i.xb7+
Exchanging bishops is very logical.
First of all it cannot really be avoided;
second, Black must now decide whether
to recapture with the king or the queen.
The other options are:
a) 19l::te1 (this position could also
arise if White had played lSl::te1 d4 19
axb4) 19 ... i.xg2 20 'it>xg2 and now:
a1) 20 ... cxb4 21 'ii'xd4 'ii'xg5 22
'ii'xc4+ 'iitbS is certainly a risky choice.
Black has won the bishop on g5 but at
the cost of White being able to destroy
the whole of Black's centre. White has
tried several rook moves but 23l::ted1!
appears to be the strongest. White
makes sure that Black cannot complete
his development due to the pin of
the d7-knight, while preserving the
other rook on the attractive a-tile. Additionally,
and most importantly, White
threatens the rook-lift 24 l::td5!. Black
can try:
all) 23 .. :~f5 24 l::td5 'iifh3+ 25
'iitf3 and Black has run out of checks
while being faced with the threat of
l::tb5+, and a number of others.
a12) 23 .. :~xf6 24 'ii'b5+ lL\b6 25
lL\xb6 axb6 26 l::txdS+ 'ii'xdS 27 'ii'c6
and Black is soon mated.
a13) 23 ... l::tcs (D) is the only move.
Then we have:

30 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
w
a131) 24 ~a6? is tempting but
gives Blackjust the breathing space he
needs. 24 ... ~f5! (an excellent defensive
and attacking move) 25liJb6 (25
h4 l:tc2 and 25 .l:.d2 'iWh3+ 26 ~f3
'it'h5+ win for Black) 25 ... l:txh2+! 26
'it>xh2 ~xf2+ 27 ~h3 (27 'it>h1 'it'f3+
28 ~h2 l:tc2+ and White is mated)
27 .. :ii'f5+ 28 g4 'it'f3+ 29 ~h4 ~f2+!
(Black had a last chance to go wrong
with 29 .. :ii'xf6+? 30 g5 ~f4+ 31 'it>h3,
when there is nothing better than a
perpetual check) 30 ~h3 ~e3+ 31
'iti>h4 ~h6+ 32 'ifi>g3 i.d6+ 0-1 Van
Wely-Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1994.
a132) 24 'ii'xf7! liJe5 (24 ... liJxf6
25liJb6 ':'h7 26liJd7+! wins for White
- Van Wely) 25 ~d5 ~xf6 26 ~b5+
'it>c7 27 ':'ac 1 + liJc6 28 l:tc2! l:th6 29
'it'a6 'ifi>b8 30 liJb6! l:tc7 31 liJd7+
l:txd7 32l:txd7 1-0 Galliamova-Buturin,
L vov 1995.
a2) 20 ... 'ii'xb4! 21 liJc3 (the endgame
after 21 'ii'f3 'it'b7 22 'it'xb7+
~xb7 23l:tac1liJb6 24liJxb6 axb6 25
l:hc4 'ifi>c6 is probably even better for
Black, as it is easier for Black to set his
queens ide pawns in motion than it is
for White to advance his phalanx on
the kingside) 2l...dxc3 22 ':'xa7 ~6
23 ~a4 is unclear according to some
older analysis by Dolmatov but this
obviously needs to be further investigated;
e.g., 23 ... cxb2 and now White
must act quickly, else Black consolidates
with ... liJb8:
a21) 24l:ta6? ~b7+ 25 ':'c6+ ~b8
26 i.f4+ liJe5 27 .ltxe5+ (27 l:txe5
i.d6 28l:te7 b1~ -+) 27 ... .ltd6 -+.
a22) 24l:te8? liJb8 -+.
a23) 24l:txd7 l:txd7 25 ~a8+ ~c7
26 i.f4+ .ltd6 -+.
a24) 24 .ltf4 .ltd6 25l:ta6 (25 i.xd6
'iWxd6) 25 ... i.xf4! 26 l:txb6liJxb6 27
'it'a6+ 'iti>c7 28 l:te7+ l:td7 29 ~b5!
i.d6 30 J:hd7+ liJxd7 31 ~xb2liJb6
and again White's chances of defending
are poor.
b) 19 liJxc5!? and then:
b1) 19 ... i.xc5 20 i.xb7+ 'it'xb7?
(20 ... ~xb7 21 bxc5 liJxc5 with compensation;
this might also occur via
note 'a' to White's 20th move) 21 bxc5
liJe5 22 f4 liJd3, Ronneland-S.Pedersen,
Gothenburg 1996, and now White
wins with 23 'ii'a4! liJxb2 24 c6! ~b6
25 'it'xa7 ~xa7 26l:txa7.
b2) 19 ... i.xg2 20 'iti>xg2liJxc5 (or
20 ... i.xc5 21 bxc5 ~b7+ 22 'ifi>gl
transposing to 'b1') 21 bxc5 i.xc5 22
~f3 'ifi>b8 is actually far from clear.
White is a pawn up and even has a
seemingly strong attack but if Black
can repel this (which I think he can)
the centre pawns should not be underestimated.

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 31
19 ... xb7 (D)
19 ... 'ii'xb7? 20 lLlxc5lLlxc5 21 bxc5
~xc5 22 'ii'c2 'ii'd5 23l:[fcl 'ii'xg5 24
'it'xc4 and White wins.
w
20 lLlc3!?
When I told a friend of mine, GM
Peter Heine Nielsen, about this line he
soon came up with this possibility. After
a long analysis session we concluded
it was more or less winning for
White (but we were wrong!). The alternatives
are therefore worth investigating:
a) 20 lLlxc5+ ~xc5 21 bxc5lLlxc5
seems to give Black quite decent compensation.
b) 20 ~f4! 'ii'c6 21 llel currently
looks the most dangerous:
bl) At first, I thought 21...~d6
was quite clever since 22 ~xd6? allows
22 .. .lhh2! 23 lLlxc5+ lLlxc5 24
lle7+ (24 f3 l::tdh8 -+) 24 ... lLld7 25
llxd7+ llxd7 26 xh2 ':xd6, when
Black is probably slightly better. However,
I soon came down to earth when I
realized that 22 b5! 'ii'c7 23 'ii'f3+
b8 24 ~xd6 'it'xd6 25 l:.e7 stops all
tricks and gives White a very promising
game.
b2) 2l...d3 22 b5 'it'xb5 23 lle4
(Lutz recommends 23 b3!?, which actually
does appear very promising:
23 ... cxb3 24lLlc3 'ii'c6 25 'it'xb3+ gives
White a clear advantage) 23 ... lLlb6 24
lLlxb6 axb6 25 lle7+ (Lutz suggests
that White should rather wait and see
what Black has in mind, for example
after 25 h4!?) 25 ... ~xe7 26 'it'f3+
'it'c6 27 l::ta7+ xa7 28 'it'xc6 ~d6! 29
~xd6 d2 30 'it'd5 l::the8 31 'it'xf7+
(this only leads to a draw, so perhaps
White should consider 31 'iii'xd2!?
lle6 32 ~b8+ ':xb8 33 h4!? with an
edge) 3l...'iita6 32 'ii'xc4+ b5 33 'ii'a2+
~b6 34 'iii'd5 llel+ 35 ~g2 dl'it', and
now rather than 36 ~xc5+? ~c7 37
'ii'xdl llexdl 38 f7 l:tld6 0-1 Aseev­
Se.lvanov, St Petersburg Ch 1998,
White should take a draw with 36
'ii'xc5+ 'iita6 37 'ii'c6+ 'iita7 38 'it'c7+
'iita6 39 'ii'c6+.
20 ... dxc3
Black is forced to accept the sacrifice.
21 iidS+ 'iitb6
21...~c8?! occurred in S.Pedersen­
Se.lvanov, Cappelle la Grande 1996. I
had confidently lashed out 20 lLlc3!?
and only spent a couple of minutes.
My opponent now had a long think
and came up with this. I was pretty sure
that I had already refuted it, but having
calmed down I soon realized that there
was not actually a forced win but that
I had t() content myself with 'just' a

32 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
very promising position. 221ba7 j.h6
(22 ... cxb2 23 j.f4 +-) 23 j.xh6 .l:r.xh6
and now:
a) 24 bxc3 .l:r.xf6 25 'it'a8+ 'it'b8 26
.l:r.dl .l:r.e8! and Black survives.
b) Noris 24 bxc5 .l:r.xf6 convincing.
c) 24 'it'a8+ tDb8 25 .l:r.aS 'it'xb4 26
bxc3 'it'b6 :t.
d) 24 'it'd6!? is tempting but a
closer look reveals that things are not
that clear. 24 ... 'it'b6 25 :a8+ ~b7 26
'fixb6+ tDxb6 27 :xd8 cxb2 28 bxc5
c3! 29 cxb6 c2 30 .l:r.dd 1 cxd 1 'it'
(30 ... :xf6 31 :cl! ':'c6 32 h4 ~xb6
33 h5 ~c7 34 h6 bxcl 'it' 351bc1 ~d7
36 h7 .l:r.c8 37 lhc2 .l:r.h8 38 .l:r.e2 gives
White some chances) 31 l:.xdl l1xf6
32 l:.bl l:.xb6 33 h4 ~c6 and I think
Black has enough counterplay to draw
the endgame.
e) 24 l:.fal! tDb8 (24 .. Jbf6 25
:a8+ tDb8 26 .l:r.xb8+ 'fixb8 27
'it'xc5+ and now 27 .. .cJ;b7 28 'ii'e7+
~c8 29 'it'xf6 +- or 27 ... ~d7 28 .l:r.a7+
'fixa7 29 'it'xa7+ ~e8 30 bxc3, winning)
25 'it'xf7 'it'c6 (25 ... 'ii'b6 26
bxc5 'it'c6 27 bxc3 {or 27 'ii'xc4!?} is
also clearly better for White; e.g.,
27 .. .lhh2 28 l:.c7+ 'it'xc7 29 'it'xc7+
xb5 26 'it'xf7 and
then:
a) 26 ... a5!? 27 j.f4 tDb6 28 j.c7
.l:r.d7 29 'it'e8 j.g7 30 'it'e5! j.xf6
(30 ... j.h6 is probably a simpler solution)
31 'it'xf6 :xc7 32 'it'xh8 a4 33
'iWe8+ .l:r.d7 34 'fie 1 a3 35 'ii'b 1 + ~c6
and I think Black has enough counterplay
to draw.
b) 26 ... j.d6 27 'it'd5 tDb6 28 'iWf5
as 29 j.cl?! (Sakaev gives 29 g4!? or
29 'it>g2 a4 30 j.c 1 :he8 31 g4 as possible
improvements) 29 ... l:.he8 30 ~g2
.l:r.el 31 j.a3 j.e5? (31...tDd7! gives
Black an improved version of the game
after 32 f7 but it is still not quite clear
exactly how Black defends against the
rolling pawns) 32 f7 j.d6 33 g4 j.f8

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 33
34 h4 l:td2 35 h5! 1:.ee2 36 .txc5!
.txc5 37 'ii'xc5+ ~xc5 38 fS'ii'+ ~b5
39 h6 +- Sakaev-Se.lvanov, Russia
1996.
c) 26 ... .th6 is a more radical way
of solving Black's problem; once his
dark-squared bishop vanishes, White
will only have his queen to prevent
Black's a-pawn from queening. 27 h4
.txg5 28 hxg5 a5 29 'ilVg6 a4 30 'iVb1 +
'it>a5 31 'ii'b7 ltJxf6!? (3l...ltJb6 is a
risky winning attempt) 32 gxf6 l:ta8
33 'ii'c7+ 1/2- 1 /2 Cu.Hansen-S.Pedersen,
Odense training match 1995.
Returning to the position after 22
.tf4 (D):
B
22 ... l:thS!!
This is the stunning move that
keeps Black alive in this whole variation.
You can be pretty sure that it is
not one of the many 'computer novelties'
we see these days, but it stems
from the strong desire of GM Sergei
Ivanov, one of the greatest experts in
the whole Botvinnik complex, to make
this line to work for Black.
Before I delve into showing why
this is so clever compared to the alternatives,
I will explain the purpose of
the rook sacrifice, for it is actually
very simple: the queen is deflected
from the centre, thus allowing Black
time to establish two far-advanced
passed pawns. "Is this really enough to
compensate for a whole rook?", you
might ask. Well, to be honest, I do not
know, but it does actually look like
Black's chances are by no means
worse. Of course, one cannot just accept
the strength of such a move by
such superfluous considerations - it
has to be backed up by concrete analysis.
We will return to that.
First, a few alternatives; the purpose
of 22 .tf4!? is shown graphically
in the first three lines:
a) 22 ... cxb4? loses outright to 23
.tc7+.
b) 22 ... l:tc8?! 23 l:ta5 'it'xb4 (after
23 ... 'iVc6 24 'ii'xc4 'it>b7 25 .l:tfa1 :a8
26 bxc3 White is much better) 24
'ii'xd7 'ii'xa5 (24 ... 'it>xa5 25 .l:ta1 + 'it>b6
26l:txa7 +-) 25 bxc3 and White wins.
c) 22 ... cxb2?! is another bad decision.
White wins by 23 l:ta5! (but not
23 .tc7+? 'it>xc7 24 :xa7+ r,t>c8 and
Black survives) 23 ... a6 (23 ... 'it'xb4?
24 .i.c7+ 'it>xc7 25 l:txa7+ 'it>c8 26
'ilVc6+ 'it>b8 27 :a8#) 24 :xb5+ axb5
25 .te3!, threatening 26 bxc5+ .txc5
27 'iVd6+ 'it>b7 28 .txc5 winning.
d) 22 ... a6 was the closest I initially
came to making this line work for
Black, but here too White is close to a
forced win. 23 :a5 'ii'xb4 (D) and then:

34 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
w
B
dl) 24 l:tfal?! 'iWxa5 25 ':xa5 cxb2
26 ':xa6+ ~xa6 27 'iWxc4+ ~b7 28
'iWd5+ =.
d2) 24 bxc3 'iWxa5 25 l:tbl + 'iWb5
26 lhb5+ axb5 (26 .. .'it;xb5 27 ~c7)
27 'iWxf7 is probably good for White
but not entirely clear.
d3) 24 l:ha6+! 'iitxa6 25 l:tal +
'iitb5 (25 ... ~b6 26 ~c7+ rl;xc7 27
l:ta7+ +-) and now:
d3l) 26 'iWb7+ is tempting but not
the right move-order; White only has a
draw after 26 ... ttJb6 27 ~c7 ':d6 28
~xb6 (28 .l:ta6?? cxb2! -+; 28 ~xd6??
cxb2! -+; 28 bxc3?? 'iWb2 29 l:ta6
l:tdl+ 30 ~g2 ':xh2+ -+) 28 ... l:txb6
29 'iWd7+ l:tc6 30 'iWb7+.
d32) 26 ~c7! ttJb6 27 'iWxd8 'iWxb2
(27 ... ~c6? 28 ~xb6 cxb2 29 'iWc8+
~d5 30 'iWd7+ and White wins) 28
'iWe8+ 'iitb4 29 .l:ta6 ttJd7 30 'iWa8! (30
'iWxd7 allows Black a perpetual check:
30 ... 'iWbl+ 31 ~g2 'iWe4+) 30 .. .'~b3
31 l:tal (D).
Note the nice geometry in all this;
'iWe8-a8 and now the rook backwards,
threatening ii'a4#. In some lines even
bringing the queen back to e4 becomes
an option. Now Black has two
possibilities:
d321) 31. .. ii'xal + 32 'iWxal c2 33
~a5 with a further branch:
d3211) 33 ... ~d6 34 ~c3! followed
by 'iWb2+ and 'iWxc2+.
d32l2) 33 ... ~h6 34 f4 ~xf4 35
ii'c3+! (35 gxf4? l:th3 36 ~d2 ':'d3 37
~c1 l:tdl+ 38 ~g2 ':xcl 39 'iWxcl
ttJxf6 and Black should make at least a
draw; e.g., 40 h4 ttJd5 41 h5 ttJb4 42
h6 ttJd3 43 ii'n cl'iW 44 'iWxcl ttJxcl
45 h7 c3 46 h8ii' and now 46 ... ttJd3 47
ii'b8+ ttJb4 48 'iWa7 c4 or 46 ... c2!?)
35 ... 'iita4 36 gxf4 l:tc8 (36 ... .l:th3 37
ii'xc2+ rl;xa5 38 'iWd2+ picks up the
knight) 37 'iWxc2+ ~xa5 38 'iWd2+ c3
39 ii'xc3+ ~b5 40 'iWb3+ ~a5 41
'iWxf7 +-.
d3213) 33 ... ttJe5 34 ii'c3+ ~a4 35
'iWxc2+ 'iitxa5 36 'iWc3+ ~a4 37 ii'xe5
'iitb4 (for 37 ... ~b3 38 ii'd5 'iitb4 39
ii'xf7, see 37 ... ~b4) 38 'iWb8+ ~a3 39
'iWa7+ ~b4 40 'iWxf7 c3 41 'iWa2 ~h6
42 f7 and I suppose White should be
able to win, although Black has some

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 35
counter-chances after, for example,
42 ... ig7!? followed by ... %:td8.
d322) 31...~c2!? may be Black's
best chance. Then after 32 %:tel!? Black
can perhaps play 32 ... itJxf6!? or even
32 ... ~b3!?, while 32 .. :i'b3? runs into
a mating-net following 33 'iii'e4+ ~b2
34 ii'bl + ~a3 35 'i'al + 'iii'a2 36
ii'xc3+ ~a4 37 ii'a5+ ~b3 38 l:te3+,
etc., and 32 ... ih6? 33 'i'xh8 id2 34
%:tf1 ~b3 (34 .. :WWb7? 35 'i'h7+ +-) 35
ii'e8! c2 36 'iii'xd7 clii' 37 l:txcl
ii'xcl + 38 ~g2 should win for White.
23 ii'xh5 cxb2 (D)
w
24:adl
24 bxc5+ ixc5, threatening to play
... ixf2+, and 24 :a5 'iii'xb4 do not
make much sense, so that leaves White
with a choice of the text-move and two
other rook moves. The text-move looks
like the most logical as it opposes
Black's rook on d8, thus making it
more difficult for Black to free the d7-
knight. The disadvantage is that Black
may eventually be able to get a pawn
to c2 and so attack the rook on dl.
a) 24 :ael (this has the advantage,
as just mentioned, that when a black
pawn eventually arrives at c2 it does
not attack the rook, but the disadvantage
of not attacking the d7-knight is
probably greater) 24 ... cxb4 25 'i'xf7
(25 ic7+ ~c6 26 ii'xb5+ ~xb5 27
.iixd8 c3 is an inferior version of the
main line) 25 ... c3 26 'iii'e6+ ~b7 27 f7
c2 28 'iii'e8 l:tc8 29 h4 'iii'd3 30 ~h2
liJf6 -+ Sakaev-Se.lvanov, St Petersburg
rpd 1997.
b) 24 l:tabl cxb4!? 25 ic7+ ~c6
26 'i'xb5+ ~xb5 27 ixd8 (27 .u.xb2
%:tc8 -+) 27 ... c3 wins for Black. Black
will simply play ...'iitc4-b3 followed
by ... c2 or run the a-pawn all the way
to a2, while White's kingside pawns
are obviously not fast enough.
24 ... cxb4!
As if one rook is not enough, Black
sacrifices a further rook and a knight,
leaving White with two rooks for only
a single pawn! However, White will
have to make use of his entire army to
stop the massive pawn-front on the
queenside.
25.iic7+
This is the most consistent approach;
White accepts all the material
Black offers. An interesting alternative,
however, is 25 ie3+!?, when
Black should probably refrain from
25 ....i.c5 26 l:td6+ ~c7 27 ixc5ltJxc5
(27... fixc5?? 28 l:txd7+! +-) 28 .u.xd8
~xd8 29 ii'xf7, which seems far from
clear, and instead play 25 ... ~c6! 26
ii'f3+ (26 ii'xf7 c3) 26 ... ~c7, and
now White has two possibilities: 27

36 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
'ti'f4+ ~b7 28 'ti'd4 c3 29 'iVxa7+ ~c8,
or 27 i.f4+ ~b6 28 i.e3+ i.c5 (of
course 28 ... ~c7 is just a repetition),
both offering Black good chances.
2S ••• ~e6 26 'ti'xbS+ 'iti>xbS 27 i.xdS
e3! (D)
As you may have noticed already,
material is not so important in this
line!
2Sl:txd7 e2!
In Aseev-Se.lvanov, St Petersburg
1997 Black went for 28 ... a5, which is
less precise, since White can attack
Black's pawns with his rook from behind.
Se.lvanov gives 29 l:tc7! as
White's best (the game continuation
was 29 l:td5+), with the following options
for Black:
a) 29 ... i.d6 30 l:tc8 a4 31 i.e7 a3
32 i.xd6 a2 33 l:tb8+ 'iti>c6 34 i.xb4
bl'ii' 35 l:ta8! (this is only given as interesting
by Se.lvanov, but the fact is
that White wins quite easily) 35 ... c2
(35 .. :ifxb4 36 l:txa2 is trivial; White
threatens l:tc1 followed by l:tac2, eliminating
the c-pawn, and if 36 ... 'iVb3 37
l:te2 there is nothing to be done about
the same threat) 36 i.d2 and again
White wins. Black cannot force the
white rook away from the a-file, and
therefore the win is quite easy: simply
pushing the h-pawn.
b) 29 ... 'iti>a4!?
c) 29 ... i.c5 30 i.e7 i.b6 31 l:tc8
a4 32 h4 a3 33 l:txc3! (without this resource
White would actually be in
great trouble) 33 ... a2 (33 ... bxc3? 34
i.xa3 i.d4 35 i.xb2 cxb2 36 g4 +-)
34 l:tb3 (34 l:tccl ? bxc1 'ti' 35 l:txc1 b3
36 i.a3 i.d4 37 l:tdl 'iti>a4 wins for
Black) 34 ... al'ti' 35 lhb4+ is clearly
better for White according to Se.lvanov,
but I am not sure whether this assessment
is right. The problem is that
it is very difficult for White to maintain
his rook behind the b-pawn. A
sample line would be 35 ... 'iti>c6 36
r;t>g2!? i.a5 37 l:tb3 'ifa2 38 l:ta3 (38
l:tb8 i.b6) 38 ... 'ifd5+ 39 ~h2 'iff5
and, I think, eventually White has to
give up a rook for the b-pawn, while it
is far from easy to make any progress
on the kingside.
29 l:tddl exdl'ti'
Lutz gave 29 ... ..ti>c4(?), which looks
like a possible winning attempt, but
Burgess's refutation in NCO looks
convincing: 30 .l:[del ..ti>b3 31 i.e7
i.h6 32 f4 as 33 i.d6! (if White's
bishop reaches e5 the pawns are effectively
stopped; e.g., 33 ... a4 34 i.e5 a3
35 h4 ~a2 36 .l:[al+!) 33 .. .a2 34 g4
bl'if 35 l:txbl cxbl'iV 36 l:txbl ..ti>xbl
37 g5 and White wins.
30 l:txdl r;t>e4

THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 37
30 ... aS? 31 J..xaS r;t;>xaS 32l:tb1 and
White wins.
31 ~f1!
White must be very careful when to
move the kingside pawns. Lutz gave
31 g4(?) which he considered winning
for White, mainly based on the line
3l...~b3? 32 gS ~c2 33l:tn b1'it' 34
lhb1 ~xb1 3S g6! fxg6 36 J..e7 b3 37
J..xf8 ~a2 38 J..a3! 'it>xa3 39 f7 b2 40
fS'if+, but Black should play the much
better 3l...J..h6!. Then after 32 l:tb1
Lutz only gave 32 ... ~c3? 33 J..aS (presumably
winning for White). However,
32 ... ~b3 is much more accurate. Then
after 33 J..aS Black plays 33 ... J..d2!
and wins after, for example, 34 h4
~c2 3S l:txb2+ 'it>xb2 36 gS ~a3!.
31...~b3 32 ~e2 ~a2! 33 J..e7
There is a nice trap hidden after 33
l:td2 as the tempting 33 ... ~a1? fails to
34 J..c7 intending J..eS. However, after
33 ... ~b3 White has to play his rook
back again, since 34l:txb2+? loses to
34 ... ~xb2 3S J..e7 b3! 36 J..xf8 ~a2.
33 ... J..h6! (D)
34 J..xb4
34 f4 should be met by 34 ... b3,
when White can still go wrong rather
w
easily; e.g., 3S l:td2? ~a1 36 J..cS b1'it'
37 J..d4+ b2 and Black wins. However,
after the much better 3S J..cS,
Black still has to play accurately to
make a draw, viz. 3S ... b1'if 36 l:txb1
~xb1 37 J..xa7 ~c2 38 J..d4 J..f8 and
now Burgess analysed 39 g4 J..b4 40
gS J..c3 41 J..xc3 ~xc3 42 g6 b2 43
gxf7 b1'it' 44 f8'if 'ife4+ and 39 h4
J..cS 40 J..a1 'it>bl 41 J..eS ~a2 42 hS
J..d6 43 h6 J..xeS 44 fxeS b2 4S h7
b1'iW 46 h8'it' 'it'e4+, with a draw in either
case.
34 ... J..cl 3S J..d2 bl'it' 36 l:txc1
'it'e4+ 37 J..e3 as
According to Se.Ivanov the endgame
is equal.

3 16 ... iVa6 and 16 ... iVd6
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tiJf3 tiJf6 4liJc3 e6 5
.ltg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .lth4 g5 9
tiJxg5 hxg5 10 .ltxg5 tiJbd7 11 exf6
.ltb7 12 g3 'iib6 13 i.g2 c5 14 d5
0-0-0 15 0-0 b4 16 tiJa4 (D)
B
Apart from the main line, 16 ... 'iYb5,
Black has two more queen moves
available: 16 .. :iVa6 and 16 ... 'iid6. Particularly
16 ... 'iYa6 has received a lot of
interest, but I have decided to cover
these moves only very briefly, since I
am now very certain that White is
somewhere between clearly better and
winning, with correct play. And the
good thing is that the refutation can be
used against both moves.
Quick Summary
Both 16 ... 'iYd6 (Line A) and 16 ... 'iia6
(Line B) are best met by 17 dxe6!,
which seems to give White at least a
very substantial advantage. After, for
example, 16 ... 'iia6 17 dxe6! (Line B2)
17 .. .'iVxe6 18 lIel liJe5 19 .ltxb7+
'iitxb7 20 'iixd8 tiJf3+ 21 'iitg2 'iic6,
White has the amazing 22 lIe8!, which
seems to win.
This renders other options against
16 .. .'iVd6 and 16 .. .'ifa6 unimportant
but I have provided short analysis of
both, particularly 16 ... 'iia6 17 a3
(Line B 1), just in case there is a flaw in
the analysis of Line B2 (which I very
much doubt).
The Theory of 16 .. :iVa6
and 16 .. :~'d6
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tiJf3 tiJf6 4 tiJc3 e6 5
.ltg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .lth4 g5 9
tiJxg5 hxg5 10 .ltxg5 tiJbd7 11 exf6
.ltb7 12 g3 'iib6 13 .ltg2 c5 14 d5
0-0-0 15 0-0 b4 16 tiJa4
Now:
A: 16 ... 'iid6 38
B: 16 ... 'iWa6 39
A}
16 ... 'iid6 (D)
17 dxe6!
17 .ltf4 is perhaps best met by
17 .. .'iVa6, when 18 dxe6 tiJxf6 does
not look very clear. 17 ... e5 18 .lte3

16 ... 'iia6 AND 16 ... 'iid6 39
w
The c-pawn drops, with a clear advantage
to White.
B)
16 ... 1i'a6 (D)
w
i.h6 19 'iWcl i.xe3 20 'iWxe3 i.a6
(20 ... liJxf6 21 'iWxc5+ 'ii>b8 22 lIfcl
'iWd7 23 'iWxb4liJxd5 24 'iWaS 'iWd6 25
liJc5 +- Wunnink-MJohansen, Dutch
U-20 Ch (Hengelo) 1997) 21 a3 ~b8
22 h4!? gave White the advantage in
Kramnik-Ivanchuk, Novgorod 1996.
17 ... fxe6
The other capture, 17 ... 'iWxe6, transposes
to Line B2.
18i.xb7+
18 f7 i.xg2 19 ~xg2 'iWc6+ 20 f3
i.d6 21 i.xd8 ~xd8 is unclear according
to Agzamov, although I do not
think that Black has enough compensation.
18 ... ~xb7 19 f7 lIe8 20 1i'xd6
i.xd6 21 lIadl ~e6 22 lIfe1
Agzamov analyses 22 lIxd6+?!
~xd6 23 lId 1 + ~c6 24 i.e7, which at
first sight looks quite good for White,
but a closer look reveals that 24 ... liJe5
25 liJxc5 liJxf7 26 liJxe6 as is not so
clear. Materially, White can be content,
but Black's queenside pawns are
dangerous.
22 ... liJrs 23 lIe4
The advantage of 16 ... 'ii'a6 over
16 .. :ii'b5 is that in some lines it is convenient
that the queen covers the 6th
rank. However, there is one significant
difference that makes 16 ... 'iWa6 clearly
inferior. I will return to that. Here,
White has two possibilities:
Bl: 17 a3 39
B2: 17 dxe6! 41
B1)
17 a3
This was for a long time considered
to be the main line, and I agree that it
makes a lot of sense to try to open the
a-file when Black's queen has resided
on a6.
17 ... i.xdS (D)
This is the real point of 16 ... 'ii'a6.
Now when White plays 18 i.xd5,
Black has 18 ... liJe5 since 19 i.xe6+ is

40 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
w
met by 19 ... 'ili'xe6. There are other options,
but all are inferior to the textmove.
18~xd5
An interesting alternative is here IS
axb4 ~xg2 19 rJi>xg2, when Black has
tried:
a) 19 ... cxb4 20 'iVe2 'it'b5 21':fdl!
lbe5 (21...'ili'xg5 loses to 22 'it'xc4+
lbc5 23 lbxc5: 23 ... 'it'xc5 24 'iVa6+
'i;c7 25 ':dc1 or 23 ... ~xc5 24 ':xa7!
+-) 22lbb6+! 'it'xb6 23 ':xdS+ 'it'xdS
24 'ili'xe5 'ili'd5+ 25 'ili'xd5 exd5 26
lha7 d4 27 ~f4 with some initiative
for White in the endgame, P.Nikoli6-
Timman, Dutch Ch (Rotterdam) 1995.
b) 19 ... 'ili'c6+ 20 f3 cxb4 21 'ili'e2
(21 'ili'd4lbb6 22lbxb6+ axb6 23 'iVf2
~c5 24 ~e3 ~xe3 25 'ili'xe3 ':d3 26
'ili'e2 ':hdS gives Black a clear advantage
according to Beliavsky) 21...~d6
22 ':fdllbe5 23 ':xd6 'ili'xd6 24 ~f4
was played in Beliavsky-Khalifman,
Yugoslavia 1995, and now 24 ... 'it'd3
25 'ili'xe5 'ili'c2+ 26 rJi>fl ':dl + 27 ':xdl
'it'xd 1 + 2S ~g2 'it'c2+ 29 ~flleads to
a draw - Beliavsky.
18 ... lbe5 19 'iVe2
19 ~xe6+? 'iVxe6 20 'ili'e2 l:td3!
wins for Black, but 19 lbxc5 ~xc5 20
axb4 ~xf2+ 21 l:txf2leads to a complicated
position; e.g., 21...l:txd5 22
'iVfl 'iVc6!?23 ':xa7!? (23 ':e2? lbf3+
24 'iVxf3 ':dl + 25 'it'fl ':xfl + 26 l::txfl
l:tdS was better for Black in Sapunov­
Galliamova, Russian Ch (St Petersburg)
1995) 23 ... lbg4 (23 ... lbd3 is
probably also a draw; e.g., 24 'it'al
'iVb6 25 ~e3 'iVxe3 26 'iVa6+ rJi>dS 27
l:taS+ and White has only a perpetual)
24 b5 l:txb5 25 l:taS+ 'it'xaS 26 'ili'xc4+
~dS 27 'ili'xb5 'iVa7 2S 'ili'd3+ 'i;eS 29
'ili'b5+ = (Lutz).
19 ... .:xd5 20 axb4 cxb4 21 lbc3
(D)
B
21 ... 'ii'c6
This exchange sacrifice is best according
to Shirov. Black gains a strong
square for the knight on d3 and good
attacking chances. However, Black
has also been doing quite well with
21...l::ta5!? 22 ':xa5 'iVxa5 23 lbe4
lbd3 24 b3 'ili'e5 and now:

16 ... 'iia6 AND 16 ... 'iid6 41
a) 2S.::tel? tiJxcl 26 'ii'xc4+ 'ii'c7!
27 'ii'xcl (27 'ii'a6+ 'ittd8! 28 ..tf4 eS
-+) 27 ... 'ii'xcl+ 28 i.xel as! + Lutz­
Piket, Cologne TV Cup 1994.
b) 2S .::tdl?! 'ii'b2! 26 'ii'xb2 (26
'ii'e3 'ii'xb3 27 .::tal tiJeS! 28 tiJd2
'ii'xe3 29 ..txe3 b3 30 ':ha7 ..tb4!! and
Black is winning, Rogozenko-Tella,
Cappelle la Grande 1998) 26 ... tiJxb2
27 .::tcl c3 28 tiJxc3 tiJd3! 29 .::tc2 tiJel
30 .::tel tiJd3! =.
c) 2S ..tf4!? (best, I think) 2S ... tiJxf4
(2S ... 'ii'hS is met by 26 g4! .::tg8 27 f3,
when White again obtains an attack
after 27 ... tiJxf4 28 'ii'xc4+ ~b8 29
.::tcl since after 29 ... .::txg4+ 30 'it'hl
.::tgl+ 31 ~xgl tiJh3+ 32 'it'fl! 'ii'xf3+
33 ~el 'ii'hl + 34 'it'e2 'iixh2+ 3S 'it'dl
White's king escapes to the queenside)
26 'ii'xc4+ ~b8 27 gxf4 'ii'hS 28
.::tel with a strong attack for White; for
example, 28 ... 'ii'xh2+ 29 'it'fl 'ii'hl + 30
'it'e2 'ii'hS+ 31 'it'e3 and White should
win.
22 tiJxd5 'iWxd5 23 f3 tiJd3
23 ... ..tcS+ 24 ~g2 tiJd3 2S h4 'it'b7
26 .::ta5! 'ii'd4 (26 ... .::td8!?) 27 b3! was
slightly problematic for Black in
Ivanchuk-Shirov, Novgorod 1994.
24 h4 b3! 25 'it'g2 ~b7 26 l:ta4
..tb4 27 ..td2 ..tc5 28 ..te3 .::tg8
Black has good compensation, Khalifman-Ivanchuk,
Elista 1998.
82)
17 dxe6! 'iWxe6
Unfortunately this is virtually forced
since 17 ... ..txg2, which would be the
usual reply with the queen on bS, can
here be met by 18 e7 ..txfl (18 ... 'ii'e6
runs into 19 tiJxcs, or even 19 exd8'iW+
'it'xd8 20 ~xg2 'ii'h3+ 21 'it'f3, when
the white king escapes) 19 tiJxcS! (see
the point?) 19 ... 'iWc6 20 exd8'ii'+ 'it'xd8
21 'ii'xd7+ 'ii'xd7 22 tiJxd7 ~xd7 23
.::txfl. I find it hard to believe that this
should not be very good for White, but
here is how the game Zarkov-Shabalov,
Boston Harvard Cup 1994 continued:
23 ... ~c6 24 .::tel 'it'bS 2S h4
(2S ..te3! looks more accurate, with
the idea that 2S ... a5 is met by 26 .::tdl!)
2S ... aS 26 ~g2 a4 27 ~f3 ..tcS 28
.l:te 1 ..td4 29 .::te2 b3 30 axb3 cxb3 and
Black's queenside pawns have become
very menacing.
17 ... tiJeS? would be another try, but
fails to 18 'iVxd8+! 'iti>xd8 19 e7+ ..txe7
20 fxe7+ 'iti>e8 21 tiJxcs 'iWg6 22 tiJxb7
'ii'xgS 23 f4 'ii'h6 24 fxeS and White
wins.
18 .::tel (D)
B
18 ... tiJe5
This involves a rook sacrifice but
appears to be Black's best chance to

42 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
mix things up. 18 .. :iWa6 19 .txb7+
'iixb7 20 'iWg4 gives White a clear advantage,
while 18 ... 'iif5 19 .txb7+
~xb7 20 .tf4 'iWxf6 (or 20 .. J:tc8 21
'iWf3+ ~a6 22 a3 ±) 21 l:te8! .tg7 22
l:txh8 .txh8 23 'iWd5+ 'iWc6 24 tiJxc5+
was played in Agzamov-Timoshchenko,
USSR 1982, and also here White
was clearly on top.
19.txb7+
19 'iWxd8+ ~xd8 20 i.xb7 appeared
in Shirov-Piket, Aruba (4) 1995, but
now Black blundered with 20 .. .'~c7??,
when White obtained a more or less
winning position after 21 .tg2 'iWd7 22
.tf4! 'iWxa4 23 .txe5+ (Shirov suggests
23 a3! as being even stronger)
23 ... ~b6 24 l:tadl (threatening l:td8).
However, Shirov thinks that Black can
save himself with 20 ... 'iWf5!, and proposes
the following variations:
a) 21 l:tad 1 + tiJd3 22 .tf4 .td6! 23
.te4 'iWh3 24 lhd3 cxd3 25 .txd6
'iWxh2+26~f1 'iWhl+27 .txhl l:txhl+
28 ~g2 l:txel 29 .tf4 c4! and Black is
better.
b) 21 l:txe5 'iWxe5 22 l:td 1 + ~c7 23
.tf4 'iWxf4 24 gxf4 ~xb7 25 :c1 l:th6
26 l:txc4 ~c6 and the ending is approximately
equal.
19 ... ~xb7
19 ... ~c7 20 'iWe2 +-.
20 'ifxd8 tiJf3+ 21 ~g2 'ifc6
This was the reason that Shirov rejected
19 .txb7 in his encounter with
Piket. Agzamov also analyses the continuation
21. .. tiJxel + 22 :xel 'iixel
23 'iWd7+ ~a6 24 'iWc6+ ~a5 25 .tf4,
which is winning for White, and the
same applies to 21...'iWf5 22 l:te7+
.txe7 23 'iixh8 +-.
22l:te8! (D)
This cool move, indicated by Burgess
in NCO, was missed by Shirov,
who had only reckoned on 22 l:te7+,
when Black has a strong attack after
22 ... .txe7 23 'iWxh8 (23 'iWxe7+ ~a8
wins for Black) 23 ... tiJxg5+ followed
by 24 ... .txf6.
B
22 ... tiJxg5+
The best chance, since 22 ... l:txh2+
23 ~f1 l:th 1 + 24 ~e2 tiJd4+ 25 ~d2
leads to less than nothing; for example,
25 .. Jhal 26 'iWa8+ ~a6 27 'iWxc6+
tiJxc6 28l:hf8 c3+ 29 tiJxc3 bxc3+ 30
~xc3 +- Chess Guru-Kallisto, Computer
Wch (Paris) 1997.
23 ~n 'ii'hl + 24 ~e2 'ii'f3+ 25
~e1 'lfl>a6 (D)
White has a choice of wins here.
26l:tdl!
This is the simple way, and leads to
a winning ending. The continuation
given by Burgess is sharper, and also
effective, viz. 26 'iWc8+ 'lfl>a5 27 tiJxc5

16 .. .'Wia6 AND 16 ... fid6 43
w
(27 'ii'd7 also looks very promising)
27 ... 'ir'hl+ 28 ~d2, and now:
a) 28 ... ii'd5+ 29 'iitc2 .txc5 30 ndl
and White wins. A sample variation is
30 ... b3+ 31 'Witet .td4 32 ii'c7+ 'iita6
33 l:xd4! 'ii'xd4 34 ii'c6+ 'iita5 35 a4!
a6 36 l:xh8 +-.
b) Black can also try 28 ... ltJf3+:
bl) 29 ~e2?! ltJd4+ 30 'iite3 ii'f3+
31 'iitxd4 ii'xf2+ 32 ~xc4 ii'c2+ 33
~d5 l:h5+ 34 l:e5 and then:
bll) 34 ... ii'g2+ 35ltJe4 nxe5+ 36
~xe5 'ii'xb2+ 37 ~f5 +-.
b12) 34 .. Jbe5+ 35 ~xe5 .txc5 and
now 36 ii'c7+~b5 37 a4+! should win;
e.g., 37 ... bxa3 38 ii'b7+ 'iita5 39 ~d5.
b13) 34 ... ii'd2+ 35 ~c6! (35 ltJd3
nxe5+ 36 'it>xe5 ii'e3+ is just a draw;
e.g., 37 'iitd5 {37 'iitf5 ii'xd3+ 38 'iitg4
ii'g6+ 39 'it>h3 'ii'h5+ 40 'iitg2 'ii'e2+
with perpetual check} 37 ... 'ii'xd3+ 38
'it>c6 ii'b5+ 39 'iitc7 ii'b6+ 40 ~d7
ii'e6+ 41 'it>c7 ii'd6+ 42 'Witb7 ii'a6+ 43
~c7 ii'd6+, etc.) 35 ... ii'd6+ 36 'iitb7
lbe5 37ltJb3+ ~a4 38 net and I suspect
White should win.
b2) 29 'it>e3! .th6+ 30 ~e4 (Burgess)
wins outright. It is appealing that
White again allows a double check (as
on move 22), which turns out to be
harmless. The most attractive line is
30 ... nxe8+ 31 ii'xe8 ii'xal 32 ii'a4+
'iitb6 33 ~d5!, when the white king
participates in the final mating attack.
26 ... 'iWhl+
White is threatening 27 nd6+, and
26 ... ii'f5 27 ii'd5! leads to the same
kind of endgame, while Black has no
hope of surviving after 26 ... ltJe6 27
nd6+ .txd6 28 'ifxd6+ ~a5 29 Ihh8
either.
27 'iitd2 'iWe6 28 ii'e8+ ii'xe8 29
llxe8 ltJe6 30 ~el!
White will win the endgame.

4 Uhlmann's 16 z:.bl
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 It:)f3It:)f6 4lt:)c3 e6 5
i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 i.h4 g5 9
It:)xg5 hxg5 10 .txg5 It:)bd7 11 exf6
i.b7 12 g3 'ii'b6 13 i.g2 c5 14 d5
0-0-0150-0 b416 l:tbl (D)
White from opening the b-file. A further
example of what might then happen
is:
B
B
For many years Uhlmann's 16 l:tb1
failed to attract the attention it deserves.
Despite a few very nice wins
by the German (former East German)
grandmaster in the early 1980s, it is
not until the late 1990s that the system
was practised regularly. Shirov describes
it as not very logical but terribly
dangerous, and indeed it is. Its
immediate justification may be seen if
Black accepts the sacrifice by capturing
the knight on c3, i.e. 16 ... bxc3 17
bxc3 'ii'a6 18 l:txb7! followed by 19
dxe6 with a strong attack. In general
Black should do his utmost to prevent
Piket - lIIescas
Dos Hermanas 1995
White has just met 16 ... i.h6 with
17 i.xh6 l:txh6 18 b3!, in the hope of
opening the b-file. This may be the
case if Black chooses the greedy, albeit
consistent, 18 ... bxc3?!, when 19
bxc4 'iVa6 20 l:txb7 1i'xb7 21 dxe6 is
terribly dangerous. The key point is
that 21...1i'b2?! is met by 22 e7! (22
exd7+ is less clear). Then 22 ... :e8 23
i.c6 'iVd2 24 'ii'b3! 1i'b2 25 i.xd7+
led Black to resign in Khalifman­
Galkin, Elista 1998. There are other
options for Black, of which the best attempt
is probably 18 ... cxb3, but after

UHLMANN'S 16 'f1.b1 45
19 tLJa4 'iWb5 20 axb3 exd5 21 l:tc1
~b8, White can, according to Piket,
claim an advantage by 22 lVd2! (instead
of the game's 22l:tel).
The powerful queen
While the open b-file might be Black's
biggest concern, one should also be
wary of the possible consequences following
conceding the as-hI diagonal.
White's knight sometimes gets access
to d5 or e4 but more frequently White
moves his queen up to d5, which is a
very powerful post, whence it not only
attacks pawns on c5, c4 and f7, but
also pinpoints the possibility of a check
on as. The following example shows
that Black must be on his utmost alert
to parry all threats:
B
Kasparov - Kramnik
New York peA rpd 1994
19 ... .txe7
Black takes the opportunity to save
his rook but nowadays 19 ... .th6 is
more popular.
20 fxe7 l:tdg8
Here 20 ....td3! has been shown to
be the best defence. Black walks a
tightrope to avoid defeat after 21 tLJe4
i.xbl! 22 tLJd6+ ~c7 23 .tf4 but
Kramnik managed to do so against
Topalov in Dortmund 1996.
21 tLJe4! l:tg6
Black has to defend against tLJd6+.
Now Kasparov took his chance to recoup
some of the material investment
with 22l:txfl ? but he later pointed out
that 22 lVaS+ would have given Black
serious problems. One line continues
22 ... tLJbS 23 .tf41Vb7 24 'ir'xb7+ ~xb7
25 ~xfl ~c6 26 l:tdl tLJd7 27 tLJd6!
:'e6 2S tLJxf7 and White wins. He
threatens both 29 tLJxhS and 29 tLJdS+.
Quick Summary
There are a few interesting things to
note about Uhlmann's 16 :bl. First of
all, I think the briefly popular 16 ... .th6
(Line A) should be disregarded in
view ofPiket's idea 17 .txh6 :'xh6 IS
b3!, which looks very strong.
Hence, the key question is whether
White can find any advantage following
16 .. .'ii'a6 17 dxe6 .txg2 IS e7
.txfl. Line Bl, 191Wd5, seems close
to a forced draw, but 19 'iitxfl (Line
B2) is very interesting. White seems to
hold the better chances after 19 ... 'ir'c6
20 exd81W+ 'iitxdS 21 tLJd5 :'xh2 22
'itgl :'hS 23 .tf4! but 19 ... .th6!? (a
move which has hitherto been ignored)
deserves attention. However,
there is virtually no practical experience
with this move.

46 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
The Theory of Uhlmann's
16 ~bl
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3ltJf3ltJf6 4ltJc3 e6 5
.tg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .th4 g5 9
ltJxg5 hxg5 10 i.xg5 ltJbd7 11 exf6
i.b7 12 g3 'ii'b6 13 i.g2 c5 14 d5
0-0-0150-0 b416 l:.bl
Now:
A: 16 ... i.h6 46
B: 16 ... 'ii'a6 47
A)
16 ... i.h6 (D)
w
17 i.xh6
Uhlmann once played 17 'ii'c1, while
17 f4 has also been tried. The textmove
does little to keep the f6-pawn
but is much more direct.
17 ... l:.xh6 18 b3!
If there is some logic behind 16
l:.bl, then this must be the natural follow-up;
the main idea behind 16 l:.bl
is that the opening of the b-file will be
extremely dangerous for Black, so 18
b3! looks logical when Black does not
oblige by taking voluntarily on c3.
Surprisingly, it nevertheless took some
time to discover the move.
A quieter approach is also possible:
Galliamova-Kalugin, Novgorod 1999
continued 18 'ii'd2 l:tg6 (18 ... l:.dh8!?;
18 ... l:.h5!?) 19 'ii'e3 ltJxf6 20 ltJa4
'ii'b5 21 dxe6 i.xg2 22 'iitxg2 'ii'c6+
23 ~gl ltJg4 24 'ii'xc5 l:.xe6 25 a3
with a clear advantage for White.
18 ... cxb3
This was Black's choice in the stem
game between Piket and Illescas. Although
Black has tried various other
moves since then, he has yet to find
any genuine improvement. Alternatives:
a) 18 ... bxc3?! 19 bxc4 'ii'a6 20
l:.xb7 'ii'xb7 21 dxe6 'ii'b2?! (Petursson
suggests 21... 'ii'b6 but White is
clearly better anyway; after 22 'ii'c1 he
gives 22 ... l:.xf6 23 exd7+ 'i3i>xd7 24
'ii'xc3 or 22 ... l:tdh8 23 exd7+ 'iitxd7 24
h4 'ii'xf6 25 'ii'a3) 22 e7! (White is
winning after this strong but not uncommon
move; the main exponent of
the 16 ... i.h6line, Sergei Ivanov, had
twice successfully defended Black's
position against 22 exd7+) 22 ... l:.e8
(22 ... l:.dh8 23 'ii'd5 is no improvement;
the main line runs 23 ... 'ii'b6 24 l:tdl
'ii'c7 25 'ii'xf7 'ii'e5 26 l:.xd7 and
White wins) 23 i.c6 'ii'd2 24 'ii'b3!
'ii'b2 25 i.xd7+ 1-0 Khalifman-Galkin,
Elista 1998. 25 ... 'i3i>xd7 is met by
26 ~a4+.
b) 18 ... ltJxf619 bxc4 'ii'a6 20ltJa4
'ii'aS 21 a3 l:tdh8 22 axb4 cxb4 23
'ii'b3 l:.xh2 24 'ii'xb4 'ii'xb4 25 l:txb4 ±

UHLMANN'S 16 'f:.b1 47
Goormachtigh-Timmermans, Antwerp
tt 1999.
c) 18 .. :i'a619 bxc4 ir'xc4 20lbe4
lbe5 21 ltcl ir'xd5 22 ltxc5+ ir'xc5 23
lbxc5 ..txg2 24 'iit'c 1 ..txfl 25 lbd3+
~b7 26 lbxe5 +- Rogers-Solomon,
Australian Ch (Gold Coast) 1998.
19 lba4 'tli'b5 20 axb3
This seems preferable to 20 ir'xb3
exd5 (20 ... c4 21 'iit'e3) 21 ltfc1 (21
lbc3 'iit'c4 =), when Piket's 21...ltxf6!
gives Black hopes of counterplay after
22 ir'xb4 'iit'xb4 23 ltxb4 c4. Note that
Black should avoid the immediate
21...c4 on account of 22 lbc3, when
22 ... 'iit'a5? loses to 23lbxd5 ..txd5 24
..txd5 'iit'xd5 25 ltxc4+

48 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
w
18 .. .'iWxe6 is awkward, but in InformaJor
73 Veingold comes up with the
interesting 18 l:te1 I?~ Since a queen
capture on e6 is now ruled out, White
is ready to take the bishop on g2, while
another unpleasant threat is 19 exd7
':xd7 20 l:te8+. These two things look
difficult to parry simultaneously, but
bearing in mind that Black is still attacking
the knight on c3, it would be
surprising if B lack could not find a defence.
The following analysis is based
on Veingold's notes in Informator:
a) 18 ... i.a8?! 19 exd7+ ':xd7 20
':e8+ 1.tc7 21 i.f4+ i.d6 22 ':xh8
i.xf4 23 'it'g4 threatens both Black's
bishops and wins.
b) 18 ... i.c6 is tougher to meet: 19
e7! bxc3 (it is no surprise that Fritz
suggests 19 .. Jle8, but after 20 exf8'it'
':hxf8 21 ltxe8+ ':xe8 22lLld5 ~b7
23 a3 the position seems to favour
White, a sample line being 23 ....:e5 24
lLle7 ltxg5 25 f4 ':g6 26 lLlxg6 fxg6
27 f7 and White wins) 20 exd8'it'+ (20
e8'ir' c2!) 20 ... ~xd8 21 bxc3 and White
has a distinct advantage.
c) 18 ... 'it'c61gexd7+l::txd720'ii'g4
bxc3 (20 ... i.h3 is met by 21 l::te8+!?
1.tb7 22 'ii'e4 ±) 21 l::te8+ ~c7 22 bxc3
(Black is a piece up but his king is too
vulnerable) 22 ... i.h3 23 i.f4+ i.d6
24 i.xd6+ l::txd6 (24 ... 'it'xd6 25 'it'f3
+-) 25 l::te7+ l::td7 26 'ii'f4+ 'ii'd6, and
now Veingold only gives 27 'ii'f3 followed
by some strange analysis; Black
can defend with 27 ... l:tb8. However, 27
l:txd7+ wins the queen; for example,
27 ... ~xd7 (the same theme occurs after
27 ... i.xd7) 28 l::tb7 + 1.tc6 29 'ii'e4+
'ii'd5 30 l:tc7 +

UHLMANN'S 16 'J:.b1 49
e3) 21 'iWe2 is more resilient; Black
must then play accurately:
e31) 21...'iWxa2? 22 .tf4+ (Black
may survive 22 ~xg2 'ir'xbl 23 .tf4+
~b6!?) 22 ... J.d6 (22 ... ~b6 23 'iWc2 ±)
23 .txd6+ l:f.xd6 241:txh8 'iWxbl + 25
~xg2 c2 26 'iWe7+ and White wins.
e32) Black should investigate the
disruptive 21...c2. For example, after
22 'iWxc2 the idea from 'e2' above,
22 ... 'iWc6, is less powerful: 23 .tf4+
.td6 24 .txd6+ l:f.xd6 25 l:f.xh8 .te4
26 'iWxc4 J.xb127 'ili'xf7+;t. Nonetheless,
Black can try 22 ... J.d5 23 J.f4+
~c6, which looks risky but is far from
over.
f) 18 ... fxe6!? 19 ~xg2 gives Black
two options:
f1) 19 ... 'iWc6+ 20 lUe4 lUe5 21 'iWe2
lUd3 (the serni-active-looking 21 ... l:f.d4
22 f3 lUd3 is worse since after 23
l:f.edl Black is tied up with no real
prospects of improving his position)
22 'iWf3 (22 l%edl!? lUxf2 23 'ili'xf2
'iWxe4+ 24 ~gl1:td5 is rather unclear
but probably not worse for Black,
whose pawn-mass on the queens ide
counts for just as much as White's
three passed pawns on the kingside)
22 ... ttJxel + (22 ... lUe5!? is worth considering,
but an even better option is
22 ... l:f.d5 !, which introduces the idea
of ... l:f.f5, a not uncommon activation
of this rook) 23 l:f.xel. The position is
unclear but probably quite good for
White. The exchange sacrifice has
served to remove the knight from d3,
and with White's terribly strong centralized
knight on e4, Black has few
chances of pushing his queenside
pawns forward, while White almost
has a clear run in on the kingside.
f2) 19 ... bxc3 20 bxc3 'ii'c6+ 21
'iitgl J.h6 (2l...ttJb6 22 'ili'g4 presses
against the e6-pawn and is rather uncomfortable
for Black) 22 'ili'g4. Black
can now try:
f21) 22 ... l:f.dg8 23 'iWxc4 l%xg5 24
1:txe6 'ili'f3 25 'ili'a6+ ~d8 26 l:f.d6! and
White seems to win in view of the
threat l:f.b8+.
f22) 22 ... J.xg5! is more prudent.
23 l:f.xe6 'ii'd5 24 'ili'xc4 has the finesse
that 24 ... 'iIt'xc4? 25 l:f.c6# is mate, but,
of course, Black can defend by means
of 24 ... lUb6!, when I do not see anything
convincing for White.
Returning to the position after 18
e7 (D):
B
18 ... .txfl
Recent top-level games suggest that
this is close to being a forced draw.
The alternative is 18 ... .ta8!?, but it is
not clear whether Black can really
equalize here:

50 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
a) 19 exd8'ii'+ ~xd8 20 ~e2 is
Yermolinsky's favourite, when after
20 ... ~c8 21 'ii'c2 "e6, he has tried:
a1) 22 ~f41?"g4 23 :fe1.th6 24
.txh6 "f3 (Shabalov claims that Black
already has equalized; in his opinion
White has to allow a perpetual check)
25 ~f1 'ii'hl+ 26 ~e2 "f3+ 27 ~d2
(27 ~f1 =) 27 ... "xf2+ 28 :e2 'iVd4+
29 ~c1 .tf31. A fantastic attacking
idea; in fact White must now play extremely
accurate to maintain the balance;
for example:
all) 30 j,g7?? :xh2! 31 :xh2
'fig1+ 32 ~d2 'ii'xh2+ 0-1 Ermolinsky-Shabalov,
USSR 1986.
a12) 30 "d2 is the only move according
to Shabalov, though he nevertheless
likes Black's position after
30 .. .lhh6 31 'iWxd4 cxd4 32 :d2 d3
33 l:i.f2 .tc6; I am not sure I agree with
this. Black needs a reply to 34 b3 and
neither 34 ... ~xf6 35 bxc4 ~e4 36 l:i.f1
:xh2 37 ~xd3 ~c3 38 l:i.b2 ~xa2+
39 ~b1 nor 34 ... c3 35 ~xd3 .te4
(35 ... a5 36 :a1 .te4 37 ~e1 ~c5 is
too optimistic) 36 ~xb4 .txb1 37
~xbl looks adequate. However, I do
not see why the bishop has to be on c6.
33 ... ~e5 seems more to the point,
when, I think, Black can indeed claim
compensation.
a13) 30 'iWa4 lhh6 31l:i.e8+ ~b7
32 'iVb5+ ~c7 33 'iVa5+ ~b7 and
White does not have better than 34
'iVb5+ with a perpetual check.
a2) 22 f3! .td6 23 :bd 1 and now:
a21) 23 ... .te5 24 :f2 (24 'iVa4!?)
24 ... l:.gX 25 ~f4 'ii'c6 26 ~d5 +-
Yermolinsky-Lapshun, Philadelphia
1998.
a22) 23 ....tc6 24 ~f4 'iVe3+ 25
'fif2 'iVxf2+ 26 l:i.xf2 .te5 27 ~d5 (27
~g2 might be preferable) and now
rather than 27 ....td4? (Ermolinsky­
Makarov, USSR 1986), which gives
White a clear advantage after 28l:hd4!
cxd4 29 ~xb4, Black should play
27 ....txd5! 28 l:i.xd5 .td4 with equal
chances - Makarov.
b) 19 ~d5!? (D) and then:
B
b1) 19 ... 'fie6!?20exf81r' l:.dxf8 21
~e7+ ~d8 22 f3 l:.h5 23 'fid2 l:.fh8
(Uhlmann-Schon, Porz 1990) and now
24 l:i.be1 'iVh3 25 l:i.e2 is the easiest.
Black's attack looks well neutralized.
b2) 19 ... 'fib7!? (this is the point of
retreating the bishop all the way to a8)
20 exf8'iV l:.hxf8 21 ~e7+ ~c7 22
.tf4+ ~e5 23 .txe5+ ~b6. Shabalov
initially assessed this as winning for
Black in view of the forced win of
White's queen, but as Santos soon
pointed out, this is actually far from
clear. He suggested that White has

UHLMANN'S 16 :'b1 51
good compensation after 24 f3 ltxdl
25 ':bxdl. This was all tried out in the
game Peter-Thallinger, Budapest 1995,
where, after 25 ... lte8 26 ':d6+

52 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SEA V
exdS1W+?! l:xdS 24 .txd8+? ~xd8 25
tDb7+ introduces a nice combination
but simply does not work: 25 ... Wc7 26
1Wxd7+ ~xd7 27 tDxc5+ ~d6 28
tDxa6 c3 and Black wins) 23 .. /ifa'b6 24
tDxc4+ (24 exd8'ii'+ ':xd8 25 tDxf7
':e8 26 "ii'd6+ ~a5 27 "ii'xd7 ':e1 + 28
~g2 .te4+ 29 f3 .tc6 30 'ii'd8+ Wa4
31 "ii'd2 l:a1 gives Black a clear advantage
according to Kramnik) 24 .. .roitb5
25 tDd6+ ~b6 26 exd8.t+ l:xd8 27
tDc4+ ~b5 28 tDd6+ ~b6 29 tDc4+
~b5 1/2_ 1 /2 Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund
1996.
20.txh6
20 exd8"ii'+ Wxd8 21 tDe4 looks
dangerous but Black keeps his pieces
together with the clever manoeuvre
21....th3! 22 tDxc5 .te6 (note that tour
of the bishop!), Ermolinsky-Ivanchul.,
Pinsk 1986.
20 ... .td3 (D)
w
21 tDe4!? (D)
Shirov describes this as 'not very
dangerous for Black' but he still failed
to find the right way for Black in his
game with Beliavsky. Yet comparing
with Kramnik's 19 ... .txe7 the difference
is not that great and there tDe4 is
invariably played.
21 exd8'ii'+ should be answered by
21...Wxd8. Alternatively, White can
try 21 'ii'a8+ tDb8 22 exd8"ii'+ l:xd8
23 l:e1 ! but with accurate play Black
keeps the balance in the endgame after
23 ... bxc3 24 .tf4 'ii'b6 (24 .. :iVb7? 25
l:r.e7! +-) 25 bxc3 .tf5!. White will ultimately
reach an ending with only
two pawns for a piece but in reality
Black's doubled c-pawns only count
for one and Black's bishop will find it
difficult coping with the white pawn
phalanx on the kingside. After 26 h4
Black has tried:
a) 26 ... .te6?! 27 Wh2 l:d7!? (or
27 ... 'ii'b2 28 l:e2! 'ii'b6 29 h5 .td5 30
'ii'xb8+ 'i'xb8 31 .txb8 Wxb8 32
l:d2! ± Nesis-Kujala, COIT. 1995-8) 28
h5 ':b7, Yermolinsky-D.Gurevich,
USA Ch 1994, and now 29 h6 would
have promised White very good winning
chances; e.g., 29 ... 'ii'b2 30 Wg1
'ii'xc3 31 ':xe6! fxe6 32 .txb8 "ii'f3 33
.td6+ ~d7 34 'ii'xb7+ 'ii'xb7 35 f7
and White wins - Yermolinsky.
b) Thus it seems better to force the
endgame immediately with 26 .. :ii'b7!
but the problem is of course that with
27 'ii'xb7+ Wxb7 28 ':e7+ l:d7 29
.txb8 Wxb8 30 l:xd7 (30 ':e5!?)
30 ... .txd7 White forces Black into a
very difficult ending, but at home
Shirov had already found that Black
can draw: 31 c;i;>g2 ~c7 32 ~f3 ~d6
33 c;i;>f4 .tc6!! (the key move of Black's

UHlMANN'S 16 :b1 53
defence; if White could get his king to
g5 and the pawn to f4 he would be
winning; e.g., 33 ... ~e6?? 34 ~g5
.ltc6 35 f4 .lte4 36 g4 .th7 37 h5 as 38
~h6 .lte4 39 'i;g7 and White wins) 34
~g5 .ltf3 35 ~f5 ~d5! 36 g4 ~d6 37
h5 ~d5 38 ~f4 .ltd 1 39 ~g5.1tf3 40
~f4 .ltdl 41 ~g5 .ltf3 42 ~f4 112-112
Azmaiparashvili-Shirov, Madrid 1996.
White cannot make progress as after
42 h6? .lte4 43 f4 .lth7! White's king
does not have access to h6 and thus
White will even be losing.
22 'it'xe4 .l:.de8
Not 22 ... .l:.xh6? 23 'it'a8+ ltJb8 24
'it'xb8+! winning.
23 .ltg7! .l:.h5 24 .l:.dl (D)
B
B
21 ... .ltxe4
In comparison with note 'b3' to
Black's 19th move above, 21.. . .ltxbl!?
might still be feasible. The question is
whether White has more than a perpetual
check after 22 ltJd6+ ~c7 23 .ltf4
~b6 24 ltJxc4+ ~b5 25 ltJd6+ 'it>b6.
The only attempt, which could also be
tried in the line with 19 ... .ltxe7, is 26
a4 but 26 ... bxa3 27 ltJc4+ 'it'xc4 28
'it'xc4 a2 29 exd8'it'+ .l:.xd8 gives
White no real winning chances as the
a-pawn is far too strong.
24 ...'ii'b5
White w

54 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
25 f4 e3
2S .. .'~c7!? deserves consideration.
26 bxe3 bxe3
After 26 ... c4? 27 cxb4 ~c7 28 g4
White's initiative is clearly more important
than Black's diminishing material
advantage, Beliavsky-Shirov,
Ljubljana 1995. It is a mystery why
Shirov rejected the text-move even
though he had seen ...
27 .:tbl e21
... when White can claim some compensation
after 28 'iYxc2 'iYc6 29 .:tdl,
but it is very far from certain that this
is adequate.
82)
19 ~xf1 (D)
B
This simple capture has somewhat
overtaken the seemingly impressive
19 'ifdS. White has fared quite well
with it, and the evidence is primarily
based on the fact that Shirov has had
big problems handling the black position.
19 ... ~h61?
When I had finished reviewing
most of the available material after 19
'it'xfl, it struck me that this typical
move of the Botvinnik System had for
some reason been totally ignored. My
first thought was that there had to be
an obvious refutation. How else could
a move that is the main defence against
19 'ifdS have been ignored like this?
However, after spending some time on
it, I am inclined to believe that it is
Black's best move - perhaps due to
current negative status of the alternatives.
But first, here is what happens
when Black respectively tries to win
material, save material or seize control
ofthe sensitive hl-a8 diagonal:
a) 19 ... bxc3? is too greedy, and
now White should continue with the
amazingly cool 20 bxc3! rather than
Uhlmann's 20 'ifdS, which permits
Black to muddy the waters with the
disruptive 20 ... ~xe7 21 fxe7 c2!, as in
Uhlmann-Alexandria, Halle 1981.
However, after 20 bxc3! Black is dead
lost; e.g., 20 ... ~h6 21 ~xh6 tLlxf6
(21.. . .:txh6 22 :b8+ +-) 22 exd8'iY+
:xd8 23 :b8+ ~xb8 24li'xd8+ +-.
b) 19 ... ~xe7?! 20 fxe7 :dg8 is an
idea with which Kramnik has experimented.
21 tLle4 li'c6 22 tLld6+ ~b8
23 ~f4 :xh2 (if 23 ... ~a8, 24 h4
keeps the h-pawn and avoids counterplay)
24 ~e2! ~a8 2S 'iYc2!. After this
very fine move, White's queen is about
to take a powerful outpost on fS, and
this gives him a more or less decisive
advantage in most lines, as shown by
Kramnik's analysis in In/armatar:

UHLMANN'S 16 '1:.b1 55
b1) 2S ... liJf6 26 'tWfS (26 'fixc4
liJg4 27 lin ±) 26 ... liJdS (26 ... liJe8 27
lId1; 26 ... liJg4 27 'tWxg4 l:txg4 28
e8'ii'+ 'ii'xe8+ 29 liJxe8; 26 .. J:tgh8 27
'1Wxf61bf2+ 2S ~xf2 lIh2+ 29 'it>e3;
26 .. Jlg6 27 lId1 1Ih5 2S 'ii'cS+!? 'fixcs
29liJxc8) 27 '1Wxf7 l:thh8 (27 ... liJxf4+
2S 'ii'xf4 +-) 2S l:td1liJxf4+ (28 ... liJxe7
29 'ii'xe7 lieS 30 liJxeS l:txeS 31
lIdS+) 29 'ii'xf4 +-.
b2) 2S ... c3 26 'ii'fS! (26 bxc3liJf6)
26 ... 'ii'a6+ 27 ~e3 +-.
b3) 2S ... 'ii'dS and then:
b31) 26 eS'ii'+ lIxeS+ 27 liJxeS
'ii'e6+ (27 ... 'ii'hS+ 28 ~e3 +-) 2S olte3.
b32) 26 'ii'fS! 'ii'xfS 27liJxfS +-.
b4) 2S ... :hS 26 '1Wxc4 (26 l:[d1 I?)
26 ... :dS (26 ... liJeS 27 'ii'e4 +-) 27
eS'1W+ :xe8+ 28 liJxeS '1We6+ 29 'it>f3
+-.
bS) 2S ... liJb6 26 'fifS liJcs 27 eS'fi
(27 'ii'xf7!? might be even stronger, but
Kamsky's move is simpler) 27 ... l:txeS+
2SliJxeS 'ii'xeS+ 29 olte3 and although
Kramnik succeeded in defending this
position in Kamsky-Kramnik, Dos
Hermanas 1996, there can be no doubt
about White's advantage.
c) 19 ... 'ii'c6 (Shirov's preference,
which aims to take control of the h1-
as diagonal before White does so) 20
exdS'ii'+ 'ifi>xdS 21liJdS (21 'ii'dS'ii'xdS
22 liJxd5 lIxh2 is less clear; even
though Black's queen is slightly annoying,
it is Black who benefits from
the exchange) 21..Jbh2 22 ~gl lIhS
23 oltf4 ! (D) and now:
c1) 23 ... oltd6 24 oltxd6 'ii'xd6 2S
'tWf3! ltJes 26 'ii'e4 lleS (Black does not
B
seem so badly off around here, but a
few accurate moves from White secure
a small edge) 27 liJe3! liJc6 2S 'ii'f3!
(not, however, 2S 'ii'xc4? lIxe3 29
fxe3 'ii'xg3+, when Black, if nothing
else, has lots of checks) 28 ... ~c7 29
liJxc4 '1Wd4 30 b3 and White is slightly
better, Kramnik-Shirov, Monaco Amber
blindfold 1996.
c2) 23 ... 'fie6?! (Shirov's attempted
improvement on the above, but when
annotating it later he described it as a
clear mistake) 24 'ii'f3 'ii'h3 (one has to
agree with Shirov's thought that this
looks quite promising, for if White
had to play 2S 'ii'g2?!, Black could
continue 2S ... 'ii'xg2+ 26 ~xg2 ~cS
27 l:[d1 liJb6 with excellent counterplay,
or 27 lIc1?! ~b7! 2S lIxc4 ~c6)
2S lldl! b3!? 26 a4! 'ii'h2+ 27 ~n
'1Wh1 + 2S c;t>e2 'ii'xf3+ 29 ~xf3 'ifi>cs 30
g4!, P.Nikolic-Shirov, Linares 1997.
White should win as Black's pieces
are too passive and there are no real
chances of creating counterplay.
Returning to the position after
19 ... olth6 (D):

56 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
w
22 'ii'd5 bxc3 23 l:dl 'ii'a4 is too optimistic,
while 22 ~e4 'ii'c6 23 'ii'c2
l:txh2 24 ~gl l:th5 25 l:dl (25 'ii'xc4
tiJxf6 26 l:tdl + ~e7 27 l:tel l:te5 28 f3
tiJxe4 29 l:xe4 l:xe4 30 fxe4 and the
resulting queen ending should be a
draw) 25 ... l:td5 gives Black excellent
chances.
20 exd8'ii+ ~xd8 21 ~xh6
One of White's best attackers in such
positions is the dark-squared bishop,
which can be terribly annoying after a
possible ~f4. Here, however, White
has little choice but to exchange it.
21 .•. l:txb6
For the reasons stressed above,
Black should avoid 21...bxc3, due to
22 ~f4! (22 ~g7 l::txh2 23 ~gl c2 24
'ii'xc2 l:h5 25 'ii'e4 also looks good for
White) and now Black has the miserable
choice between:
a) 22 ... 'ii'c6 23 ~gl.
b) 22 ... l:xh2 23 ~gl l:th8 24 bxc3
+-.
c) The best attempt is probably
22 ... cxb2 23 'ii'f3! c3+ 24 ~gl l:te8
but all Black's pawns drop off after
25 'ii'a8+ 'ii'c8 26 'ii'xa7 followed by
'ii'a5+ and 'ii'xc3.
22 ~d5!? (D)
This is very similar to note 'c1' to
Black's 19th move above, with only a
few differences. Most notably, Black's
queen is on a6, and it makes sense to
try to utilize this.
B
22 ... c3+
This is the only move I have been
able to make work. Here is a brief
summary of what I looked at:
a) 22 ... l:xh2 23 ~gl l:th8 24 'ii'f3
is similar to Kramnik-Shirov and it
does not seem to make much difference
that the queen is on a6 rather than
d6.
b) 22 ... 'ii'xa2 is risky, but has to be
taken into account. However, White
has the very simple 23 l:tal 'ii'b3 24
'ii'xb3 cxb3 25 l:xa7 tiJxf6 26 l:ta6
tiJg4 27 l:txh6 tiJxh6 28 tiJe3, when
the knight ending favours White. Perhaps
there is even something stronger.
c) 22 ... ~c8!? (D) is an attempt to
free the knight. Now White can try:

UHlMANN'S 16 :b1 57
w
w
c1) 23 'ir'g4 is met by 23 ... 'ir'e6,
with the idea that 24 0,e7+ 'it;(b7 25
'ir'xe6 fxe6 26 f7? (26 l:.el is probably
better for White) is answered by
26 .. .lhh2! 27 :dl (27 'it;(gll:th7 28
:dl0,f8) 27 ... ':hl+ 28 'it;(e2l:txdl 29
~xdl0,f8, when Black is not worse
since his king comes to the rescue.
c2) 23 'ir'f3 is simplest. Now if
23 ... 0,xf6, 24 'ir'f5+ 'ir'e6 25 'iWxe6+
fxe6 260,xf6 ':xf6 27l:tc 1 gives White
a winning rook ending.
23 ~gl 'ii'e6 (D)
240,f4
On the face of it, this looks like the
safest choice. If 24 bxc3 'iWh3 25 cxb4
'iWxh2+, White has to walk his king up
the board if he does not want to allow a
perpetual check. However, this is a
very risky operation, and as the following
analysis shows, Black should
not be unhappy with it: 26 ~fl 'ir'h 1 +
27 'it;(e2 'ir'h5+ 28 ~e3 'ir'e5+ 29 ~f3
'iWh5+ 30 g4 (otherwise Black has an
instant perpetual) 30 ... 'ir'h3+ 31 ~e4
'iWh2!, and, for example, 32 f4 :h3
with a strong attack.
24 ... 'iWxa2 25 bxc3 l:txf6 26 cxb4
Or 26l:tall:td6!, when both 27 'ir'c1
'iWc4 and 27 'iWfl 'ir'c2 give Black adequate
counterplay.
26 ... l:td6! 27 'iWcl c4!
The passed c-pawn, together with
the fact that White has some backrank
problems, provides Black with
good counterplay.

5 Black's 13th Move Alternatives
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 llJf3llJf6 4llJc3 e6 5
i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 i.h4 g5 9
llJxg5 hxg5 10 i.xg5 llJbd7 11 exf6
i.b712 g3 c5 13 d5 (D)
B
The ideas for Black in this chapter
are not available if White chooses the
move-order with 11 g3, though delaying
the capture on f6 gives Black some
alternative ideas (see Chapter 7, Line
A). It is largely a matter of taste which
deviations White wants to avoid.
Quick Summary
The first two alternatives we consider,
13 ... llJb6 (Line A) and 13 ... llJe5 (Line
B) are both rarely seen. 13 ... llJb6 was
reasonably popular until Polugaevsky
discovered the ingenious 14 dxe6!
'ii'xdl + 15 ':'xdl i.xhl 16 e7 a6 17
h4! i.h6 18 f4!, after which Black will
never be able to free his rook on h8.
Hence Black turned his attention towards
14 ... i.xhl 15 e7 'ii'd7, but this
is still good for White. The same can
be said of 13. .. llJe5 14 i.g2 llJd3+ 15
~f1, where Black has spent valuable
time to achieve very little.
13 ... llJxf6 (Line C) and 13 ... i.h6
(Line D) are, however, both playable
options. In particular, I find the line
13 ... llJxf6 14 i.g2 i.e7 15 0-0 llJxd5
16 i.xe7 ~xe7 17llJxb5 'ii'b618llJa3
.:!.h4!? 19 'ii'd2llJf4!? very interesting,
but I admit there is a certain risk that
putting two pieces en prise like this
will not hold up to close scrutiny.
The Theory of Black's
13th Move Alternatives
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3llJf3llJf6 4llJc3 e6 5
i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 i.h4 g5 9
llJxg5 hxg5 10 i.xg5 llJbd7 11 exf6
i.b712 g3 c5 13 d5
Now:
A: 13 ... llJb6 59
B: 13 ... llJe5 60
c: 13 ... llJxf6 62
D: 13 ... i.h6 68
13 ... 'ii'c7 14 i.g2 transposes to
Line Bl in Chapter 7. Not, however,
13 ... b4? 14 i.xc4! and White wins.

BLACK'S 13TH MOVE ALTERNATNES 59
A)
13 ... ltJb6 14 dxe6!
This is the stunning move that
makes White's whole concept with 11
exf6 instead of 11 g3 playable. If Black
were allowed to capture on d5 he
would be better, for example after 14
.tg2liJxd5.
14 ... .txhl
It is clear that Black has to accept
the rook in one way or another but he
could also choose to throw in an exchange
ond1. For example, 14 ... 'iIi'xdl+
15 ':'xdl .txhl (15 .. .fxe6 16 ':'gl a6
17 h4 ±) 16 e7 (D) and now rather than
attempting to rescue his dark-squared
bishop, Black should restrain White's
knight from jumping forward:
B
a) 16 ... .th6? loses immediately to
17 ltJxb5 ltJd5 (17 ... .:.c8 18 ltJc7+
':'xc7 19 ':d8#) 18 .th3 ltJxe7 19
ltJc7+ ~f8 20 ':'d8+ ':'xd8 21 fxe7+
~g7 22 exd8'i1i' ':xd8 23 .txd8.
b) 16 ... .tc6 17 l:.d6 b4 (17 ... .:.c8
18 h4! .th6 19 f4 b4 20 .th3l:tb8 21
':'xc6 bxc3 22 bxc3 wins for White
since Black will be able to free his imprisoned
rook on h8) 18 ':'xc6 bxc3 19
':'xb6 axb6 20 .txc4 ~d7 21 bxc3
.th6 22 h4 .txg5 23 hxg5 is analysed
by Burgess in The Mammoth Book of
the World's Greatest Chess Games,
and forms an incredible ending. White
only has a bishop and four pawns for
two rooks but the far-advanced pawns
provide more than enough compensation.
The threat is 24 .txf7, and if
23 ....:.h7, 24 .tb5+ ~e6 25 e8'i1i'+
':'xe8 26 .txe8 is very good for White.
c) 16 ... a6 and then:
cl) 17 exf8'ii'+?! ~xf8 18 .te3
l:th5 19 ':d6 l:.b8 20 .te2 l:.e5 21ltJd 1
~g8 22 .tf4 l:.ee8 23 ltJe3 .te4! with
slightly the better chances for Black,
Beliavsky-Bagirov, Moscow tt 1981.
c2) 17 h4! (this truly amazing idea
is designed to lock in the rook on h8)
17 ....th6 18 f4! (this is the real point;
if Black exchanges on g5, White can
take back with the f-pawn and the h8-
rook will never get out) 18 ... b4 19
':'d6! (only this energetic follow-up
justifies White's idea) 19 ... l:.b8 20
ltJdl .txg5 21 fxg5 ltJd5 22 .txc4
ltJxe7 23 fxe7

60 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
Alternatively, 16 f3!? prepares lDe4
and in fact looks quite dangerous.
However, it seems that Black can solve
his problems:
a) 16 ... 'ii'xd1+ 17 lhd1 i..xf3 18
':d6! is very good for White as there is
no defence against White's knight advancing
on the next move; for example,
18 .. .lhh219lDxb5liJd5 (19 ... ':c8?
20 lDc7+!) 20 i..xc4 ±.
b) 16 ... i..xe7!? 17 fxe7 f6! 18 i..xf6
(18 'iWxd7+? lDxd7 is slightly better
for Black) 18 ... ':xh2, Bareev-Lukacs,
Vrnjacka Banja 1987, and now White's
best is 19 'iWxd7+! lDxd7 20 lDxb5
lDxf6 21 lDc7+

BLACK'S 13TH MOVE ALTERNATIVES 61
one stage or another. True, this is very
disruptive and here it even gets there
with check, but it releases pressure
against the f6-pawn and more importantly
does nothing to complete Black's
development.
14 i.g2 ttJd3+
The only logical follow-up. Others
are not worth repeating:
a) 14 ... b4 15 'fia4+ 'fid7 16 'fixd7+
~xd7 17 ttJb5 0-0-0 180-0-0 a6 19
~a7+ rJ;c7 20 dxe6 i.xg2 21 i.f4+
~b7 22 e7! ± Brkljaca-Karaklaji6,
Bela Crkva 1984.
b) 14 ... i.h6 15 'fih5! (the idea of
throwing in ... i.h6 is in itself quite
sensible since 15 i.xh6 ttJd3+ 16 'itf1
:xh6 gives Black a lot of counterplay
in view of White's awkward king's position)
15 ... b4 16 0-0 bxc3 17 .:tael
'fid6 18 i.xh6 cxb2 19 dxe6 i.xg2 20
:xe5 0-0-0 21 rJ;xg21:txh6 221:txc5+
rJ;b8 23 .:tb5+ 'liIc7 24 'fixf7+ 1-0
Ermolinsky-Yuneev, USSR 1984.
15 rJ;n (D)
B
15 ... 'fid7
Black needs to meet White's threat
of 16 dxe6, and since 15 ... exd5 16
'fie2+ 'itd7 17 ttJxd5 leaves no consolation,
there is only the text-move and
15 ... ~b6. However, after 15 ... 'fib6
Black does not threaten to take on d5,
and thus White can begin undermining
the queenside immediately: 16 b3
'fi a5 17 dxe6 i.xg2 + 18 rJ;xg2 fxe6 19
'fif3 .:tb8 20 bxc4 'fixc3 21 f7+ 'itd7
22 .:thdl ± M.Houska-McDonald,
Hampstead 1998.
16 dxe6
Very natural but not necessarily
best. Others:
a) 16 'iWe2 O-O-O! 17 dxe6 fxe6 18
i.xb7+ 'itxb7 19 'fie4+ 'fic6 20 h4
i.d6 21 f4 b4 22 'fixc6+ ~xc6 23 ttJe4
~d5!, as in Bagirov-J.Hansen, Moscow
1975, is actually not very clear.
While White's three passed pawns
look very menacing, Black's queenside
pawn-mass should not be underestimated,
as it is supported by the strong
knight on d3.
b) A better option for White is Vujatovi6's
suggestion 16 'fif3! - even
Kasparov has confirmed that this is
very strong. The idea is that 16 ... exd5
is met by 17 h4!, which prevents Black
from castling queenside. Also, 16 ... b4
does not look worth pursuing. Stone­
Morrison, Canada 1986 went 17 dxe6
'fid418 exf7+~d819 ttJdS a5 20.:tdl
a4 21 i.f4 .:ta6 22 i.c7+ ~d7 23
'fifS+ 1:te6 24 i.a5 and even though
Black went on to win, it is White who
should be able to convert this into a
full point.

62 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
16 ... fxe6 17 b3
17 'it'e2 0-0-0 transposes to note 'a'
to the previous move.
17 ... 0-0-018 bxc4 j,h6! (D)
w
The standard way of softening up
the f6-pawn. If Black could exchange
the dark-squared bishop and win the
f6-pawn, the open f-file in combination
with the powerful knight on d3
would give Black a strong attack.
19 j,h4
The only move. Illescas provides
some lines to illustrate the dangers of
exchanging bishops:
a) 19 f4 j,xg5 20 fxg5 j,xg2+ 21
~xg2 'ili'c6+ 22 'ili'f3 tLlf4+! -+.
b) 19 tLlxb5 j,xg2+! 20 ~xg2
'ili'b7+ (20... j,xg5!?) 21 'it'f3 j,xg5 22
'ili'xb7+ ~xb7 and White does not
have sufficient compensation.
c) 19 j,xh6l:hh6 20 tLlxb5 l:lxf6!
21 tLlxa7+ (21 f3 a6 22 tLlc3 'ili'd4 -+)
21...b8 22 j,xb7 l:lxf2+ 23 ~gl
'it'xb7 -+.
19 ... b4 20 tLldS! exdS 21 'it'xd3
dxc4
If Black wants to avoid exchanges,
he can try 21...j,a6 22 ~gl j,xc4 23
'it'f3 with an unclear position.
22 j,xb7+! 'it'xb7 23 'it'fS+ ~b8 24
l:lgl!
Beliavsky-Illescas, Linares 1994. I
would rather not assess this position.
In reality, Black only has two passed
pawns (the doubled c-pawns) while
White has four on the kingside, but
with the better bishop and generally
more active pieces, Black has plenty of
counterplay. Illescas played 24 ... j,d2!?
but 24"'l:ld5 25 'ii'e6 c3 is also worth
considering.
C)
13 ... tLlxf6 (D)
w
A number of recent games have
suggested that we should take a fresh
look at this move. It is slightly provocative,
in as much as Black walks
straight into a pin. However, there is
no direct way for White to exploit this
fact since Black is ready to neutralize
it on his next move with ... j,e7, after

BLACK'S 13TH MOVE ALTERNATNES 63
which there will be substantial pressure
against the d5-pawn. White must
be careful not to lose this pawn without
compensation, while Black's main
worry is that his position will fall apart
with the disappearance of the b5-pawn.
The line was quite popular in the
first half of the 1990s with several
very strong players, e.g. Kramnik,
Ivanchuk and Dreev, adopting it, but
has since then almost disappeared.
However, a revival may be in order.
14.tg2
This is the established main line,
but there have been a few (unsuccessful)
attempts to punish Black's previous
move immediately:
a) 14 .txc4 bxc4 and now White
has the option of going for an attack or
re-establishing material equality:
al) 15 .txf6 'iVxf6 16 'iVa4+ ~d8
170-0-0 e5 18 f4 (18 d6? .txhl 19
'ifa5+ litd7 20 'ifc7+ ~e6 21 d7 'ifd8
and Black survives with a clear material
advantage, but playing for longterm
compensation with 18 'ifxc4 is
probably preferable) 18 ... exf4 19 d6
.txhl 20 'ifa5+ litd7 21 'ifc7+ ~e6 22
d7, Shabalov-Miiller, Pula 1989, and
now 22 ... 'ife5! 23 d8'if l:xd8 24 'ifxd8
.tf3 25 l:d7 litf5 26 l:xf7+ 'ittg6 27
l:xfB 'ife 1 + gives Black a decisive advantage
- Shabalov.
a2) 15 'ifa4+ ~d7 16 .txf6 ~xa4
17 ~xa4 l:h6 (17 ... .txd5 18 .txh8
.txhl 19 .tf6 is better for White due
to Black's weak c-pawns) 18 .tg5
l:g6 19 h4 exd5 20 0-0-0 (20 O-O!?)
20 ... .tc6 21 l:hel + 1:te6 22 ~c3 d4 23
~e2 ~d7 24 ~f4 1:td6 25 ~h3 .tf3 26
l:d2 .tg4 27 ~gl l:a6 =1= Iasnikowski­
Bany, Polanica Zdroj 1988.
b) 14 dxe6 (D) and then:
bl) 14 ....txhl 15 'ifxd8+ 1:txd8 16
.txf6 +-.
b2) 14 ...'iVxdl+ 15 l:xdl.txhI16
.txf6 1:th6 17 ~xb5 fxe6 (17 ... l:xf6?
18~c7+~e719l:d7#) 18~c7+'litf7
19 .tg5 1:txh2 20 ~xa8 .txa8 21
.txc4 ±.
b3) 14 ....tg7 with a further branch:
b31) 15 1:tgl 'ifb6! 16 'ife2 'ifxe6
17 ~xb5! 'iVxe2+ 18 .txe2 ~e4! 19
0-0-0 (19 .tf4 is worth considering,
but not 19 ~c7+? litf8 and now 20
.tf4 l:d8 with counterplay, or 20 ~xa8
~xg5! 21 ~c7 .txb222l:dl l:xh223
1:td8+ 'lite7 24 l:b8 .td4 =1= Lobron)
19 ... ~xg5 20 ~d6+ 'litf8 21 ~xb7
1:txh2 =+= Lobron-Kramnik, Dortmund
1993 .
b32) Lobron favours the preliminary
queen exchange 15 'ifxd8+!
1:txd8, and only then 16 1:tgl, and I
agree. With the queens off, White has

64 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLA V
a lot less to worry about, and Lobron
likes White in all the following lines:
16 ... a6 17 exf7+ ~xf7 18 i.g2; for
16 .. .llxh2 17lLlxb5 fxe6, see 16 ... fxe6;
16 ... b4 17lLla4 and 16 ... fxe6 17lLlxb5
lLle4 (or 17 .. Jlxh2 18 i.xc4) 18 i.xd8
i.xb2 (18 ... ~xd8 190-0-0+ and White
wins) 19 l:dl +-.
b4) 14 ... i.e7 15l::tgl 'ir'b616 exf7+

BLACK'S 13TH MOVE ALTERNATIVES 65
the a7-pawn, White's knight is ensured
a safe outpost on b5; it and the
queen form a dangerous attacking
duo. Furthermore, White is a pawn up.
Nevertheless, Black has plenty of
counterplay in the form of the bishoppair
and open files against White's
king, but first he must unblock the h­
file:
a) 19 ... .tg7 20 a4! 'iWh6?! (White
easily defends against this, so Kasparov
suggests doubling rooks, beginning
with 20 .. J:th6!?) 21 h4 .tf6 22
'iWe1! (a superb move, threatening 23
'iWa5) 22 ... .txh4 23 'iWa5 (23 'iWe5+!
rJi>a8 24 'iWc7 is similar to what happens
in the game) 23 ... .te7 24 'iWc7+
rJi>a8 25 'iWa5+ rJi>b8 26 'iWc7+ ~a8 27
.l:tfe1, and there is no defence to the
simple threat of White advancing his
a-pawn, Kasparov-Ivanchuk, Linares
1994.
b) 19 ... .tg5!? had a fantastic first
outing. The idea is of course that White
is deprived of the defence Kasparov
adopted against Ivanchuk (since Black
does not spend two moves before being
able to sacrifice the bishop). Let us
first take a look at the stem game:
b1) 20 f4 'iWh6! 21 fxg5?! (21 h3 is
forced) 2L..iVxh2+ 22 ~f2 d4! 23 l:tg1
.l:th4!!. A magnificent move, threatening
... .l:tf4+! or even the simple ... .l:te8.
It is not so obvious why White cannot
take the rook, so we first examine this:
b11) 24 gxh4 'iWxh4+ 25 rJi>e2 (25
rJi>f1 'iWf4+ 26 .tf3 .txf3 27 'iWc 1
.te2+! 28 ~e1 'iVe4 -+) 25 ... d3+! 26
~e3 (26 ~d2 c3+! 27 tbxc3 'iWf4+ 28
~e 1 d2+ and mate in three more
moves) 26 ... iVxg5+ 27 ~f2 'ilh4+ 28
~e3 lWg3+ 29 .tf3 (29 ~d2 'iWf4+ 30
~c3 'iWf6+ 31 ~xc4 'ilh4+ 32 ~xc5
.l:tc8+ 33 ~b6 iVd8+ -+) 29 ... .l:te8+ 30
~d2 'ilh2+! 31 rJi>c3 .txf3 32 iVc1
'iWe5+ 33 ~xc4 .td5+ 34 ~xc5 .tc6+!
winning - Shirov.
b12) 24 iVe2 .l:te4 25 'iWf3 d3 +
Komljenovic-Lupu, Andorra 1994.
b2) 20 iVe1!? .l:td7 (20 ... iVh6 21
'iWe5+ ~a8 22 h3! intending 'ilJc7 looks
dangerous according to Sadler, so
Black first prevents White's queen
from penetrating) 21 b3 'iWh6 and now
22 iVe5+ ~a8 23 h4 .txh4 24 gxh4 f6
25 iVc3 'iWxh4 26 'ilJa5+ c;i;>b8 27 iVa7+
~c8 28 iVxc5+ ~b8 29 l:tfe1 .l:tg8 30
"ii'a7+ ~c8 31 'iWc5+ rJi>b8 32 rJi>f1?
(32l:[e7!?) 32 ... 'iWg4 33 'ilJa7+ ~c8 34
iVc5+ 'it>b8 35 'iWa7+ ~c8 112-112 lonov­
V.Popov, St Petersburg Ch 1997. However,
Lutz points out that White should
hold the check on e5 in reserve, and
play the more accurate 22 h4!.
We return to the position after
14 ... ..te7 (D):
w

66 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
15 0-0 tLlxd5 16 .i.xe7 rJ;;xe7 17
tLlxb5 'ii'b6 (D)
w
A little thought on this position and
the sequence leading up to it is in place.
First, after White castled on move 15
he was actually threatening 16 d6, so
the last few moves have been more or
less forced. The material balance is
equal but Black's pawn-structure is
evidently worse, while also his king is
not very safe. On the positive side
there are lots of open files and active
piece-play but Black must keep playing
actively, otherwise White will
consolidate and eventually round up
the c-pawns or queen the h-pawn.
18 tLla3
In the game Quist-Karolyi, Dieren
1988, White decided that the knight
on d5 was too strong and had to be removed;
and hence preferred 18 tLlc3??
tLlxc3 19 bxc3 i.xg2 20 rJ;;xg2, but
now, rather than the game's 20 ... 'ifc6+,
Black can win with 20 ... 'ifb7+! 21 f3
(21 'iitg1 and 21 'iVf3 are both answered
by 21..Jhh2(+)!) 21...'ifb2+
22 ~f2 ~xh2+ 23 'iitxh2 'iVxf2+ 24
'iith3 f5 and mate in a few more moves.
18 ... ~h4!?
This spectacular idea of Kramnik's
has several purposes:
1) it protects the c4-pawn;
2) the rook can be centralized on
the d4-square;
3) it may prepare doubling rooks;
4) ... tLlf4 becomes a serious option.
Of course, all this is only relevant as
long as White cannot simply take the
rook. But first we should examine the
other main continuation for Black,
namely 18 ... c3, when White has the
following options:
a) 19 bxc3 tLlxc3 is fine for Black.
b) 19 ~b1 cxb2 20 tLlc4 'iVc7 21
~xb2 tLlb6 22 i.xb7 tLlxc4 23 i.xa8
tLlxb2 24 'iff3 tLlc4 25 'ifc3 l:ha8 26
'ifxc4 ~d8 with an equal ending,
Razuvaev-Serper, Tilburg 1993.
c) 19 tLlc4 'ifc7 with a further split:
cl) 20 'ifc1?! ~ag8 (20... cxb2 21
'ifxb2 gives White an edge) 21 f4,
Vladimirov-Dzhandzhgava, Pavlodar
1987, and now Black should play
21...~h7! (it is fairly important that
Black chooses this square for the rook
and not h6), with an advantage. For
example, 22 bxc3 ':gh8 23 h4 ':g8 24
'iith2 ~hg7 25 ~f3 tLlf6 and Black has
a clear advantage. Why 21...~h7! is
the strongest comes to light here, as if
Black had played 21. .. ~h6 the rook
would now have been on g6 and not
g7, which would have given White the
chance to put up some resistance with
26 tLle5!.

BLACK'S 13TH MOVE ALTERNATIVES 67
c2) 20 b3 ttJf4! (after 20 .. J:tag8 21
l:te 1 l:tg5!, 22 l:tc 1 ?! ttJf4! was very
good for Black in Czerwonski-A.Sokolov,
Lublin 1993, but White has the
stronger 22 i.e4!, intending 'it'f3 with
an advantage - A.Sokolov) 21 i.xb7
(21 gxf4? 'it'xf4! 22 'it'd6+ 'it'xd6 23
ttJxd6 i.xg2 24 ~xg2 l1ag8+ 25 ~hl
'ittxd6 26 l:tad 1 + ~c6 +) 21 ... ttJh3+ 22
~g2 'it'xb7+ 23 f3. This is unclear according
to A.Sokolov, but I would
rather be Black after 23 ... 'it'd5 24 'it'c2
l:tag8.
c3) 20 bxc3 ttJxc3 21 'it'd2 i.xg2
22 ~xg2 ttJe4 23 'it'e3 ttJf6 24 'it'f3
gives White a slight advantage, Van
Wely-Dreev, Bern 1993.
19 'it'd2 (D)
19 gxh4 is too risky in view of
19 ... l:tg8! (19 ... ttJf4?! 20 i.xb7 'it'xb7
21 f3 'it'xb2 22 'it'd6+! +-) 20 ttJxc4
ttJf4 21 f3 l:txg2+ 22 'itthl 'it'c7, when
Black has excellent compensation.
B
19 ... ttJf4!?
This is for the moment Black's best
try. Other options are:
a) 19 ... l:td4?!. I am not sure whether
this was the product of Kramnik's
preparation but it is certainly not very
impressive. Indeed, the rook is well
centralized and reasonably secure but
more aggressive measures are required.
20 'it'g5+ ttJf6 (20 ... ~d7 is met
by 21 b3!) 21 i.xb7 :'g8 22 'it'e5 ttJd7
(Kramnik had apparently missed that
22 ... ttJg4 23 'it'h5 ttJf6 does not force a
repetition but rather loses a piece due
to 24 'it'f3) 23 'it'e2 'it'xb7 24 ttJxc4 ±
Van Wely-Kramnik, Biel IZ 1993.
b) 19 ... l:tg8? 20 f4! (I would rather
be Black after 20 gxh4 ttJf4 21 l1fdl
1Ii'c7) 20 ... ttJxf4 (this was praised in
many sources but is the only follow-up
to Black's previous move; the fact that
it leads to a rapid loss casts a shadow
over Black's 19th move) 21 l:txf4 (21
ttJxc4?! 'it'c7! is less clear) 21...l1xf4
22 'it'xf4 'it'xb2 " ... and surprisingly
White does not have more than perpetual
check. I advise adherents of the
Botvinnik line to study this line well,
as I suspect that White is able to improve"
- Van Wely in New in Chess
Magazine. Well, no need to do that.
White wins instantly, as pointed out by
Dautov, with 23 'it'd6+!! (later played
in J a. Gonzales-Villamayor, Greenhills
Open 1996). 23 ... ~xd6 walks into a
fork, 23 ... ~e8 permits 24 'it'b8+ followed
by 'it'xb7+, and 23 ... ~f6 is simply
met by 24 l1n + followed by
i.xb7, when White stays a piece up.
Also, White wins after 22 ... i.xg2 (instead
of 22 ... 'it'xb2) 23 ttJxc4 'it'c6 24
ttJe5.

68 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
20 tLJxc4 'ii'a6!?
Usually Black would rather have
his queen on c7 than on a6, but in Oll­
Topalov, Biel IZ 1993, Black did not
fare well with 20 ... 'ii'c7 21 f3 tLJxg2
(21...l:1d8 22 'ii'a5!) 22 'ii'g5+ ~f8 23
gxh4, and White was winning.
21 tLJe3
all's recommendation. The alternatives
are:
a) 21 ..txb7 tLJh3+ 22 ~g2 'ii'xb7+
23 f3 :d8 24 'ii'e2 :g8 with an attack,
Stocek-Papazov, Tallinnjr Ech 1997.
b) 21 l:1fcl l:1g8 (21.. . ..txg2 22
gxh4 l:1g8 23 'ii'xf4 ..th3+ 24 'ii'g3
l:1xg3+ 25 hxg3 'ii'b7 26 tLJe3 'ii'xb2 27
a4 is much better for White - Dautov)
22 ..txb7 'ii'xb7 23 'ii'd6+ 'if.?f6 24 'ii'e5+
'if.?e7 (24 ... 'iii'g6?! 25 gxf4 {25 f3!?}
25 ... 'if.?h7+ 26 'iii'fl llxh2 27 'it>e2! looks
insufficient for Black) 25 'ii'xc5+ 'if.?f6
26 'ii'e5+ 'if.?e7 and now 27 'ii'd6+ repeats,
but 27 tLJe3 is a winning attempt;
e.g. 27 ... tLJe2+ 28 'ittfl tLJxcI 29 tLJf5+
'it>d7 30 'ii'd6+ ~e8 31 l:1xcl exf5 32
'ii'e5+ ~f8 33 'ii'c5+ 'ittg7 34 gxh4.
21...l:1d8 22 'ii'c2 tLJe2+ 23 'if.?hl
l:1h5
N aumann-Ka.Miiller, B undesliga
1998/9. I prefer Black's attacking
prospects.
0)
13 ... ..th614 ..txh61hh6 (D)
The exchange of the dark-squared
bishops is strategically a very plausible
decision. Black intends to capture
on f6 with the knight, and compared to
Line C there is no pin now. The
w
disadvantage is that the operation is
somewhat time-consuming, the rook
is exposed and it is not yet clear
whether the bishop is really needed for
defensive measures - here I am thinking
of controlling the d6-square or defending
the c5-pawn. White has two
options:
Dl: 15 ..tg2 68
D2: 15 'ii'd2 69
Line D 1 is a very natural continuation
but it lacks the directness of the
second option.
01)
15 i.g2 b4
15 ... tLJxf6 16 tLJxb5 is slightly
better for White.
160-0!?
Only recently has this idea been rediscovered.
Dvoretsky analysed it in
1983 but only with the conclusion that
accepting the sacrifice would be too
dangerous and thus Black should reply
16 ... tLJxf6.
The alternative is 16 tLJe4 (16 tLJa4
tLJxf6 17 tLJxc5 transposes to line 'c')

BlACK'S 13TH MOVE ALTERNATNES 69
16 ... ttJxf6. Black's position appears
rather loose but White cannot keep his
d-pawn and with its fall White's initiative
decreases significantly, while on
the other hand Black will coordinate
rapidly. A few lines:
a) 17 'ii'e2 .txdS 18 ':dllfi>f8 19
0-0 (19 'ii'e3 ':hS 20 'ii'xcS+ 'ilie7 leads
nowhere) 19 ... ttJxe4 20 .txe4 'ii'gS!
21 f4 'ii'hS 22 .tf3 .txf3 23 ':xf3 c3!?
24 bxc3 bxc3, Razuvaev-Yusupov,
USSR Ch (Moscow) 1983, and now
2S':f2 'it'xe2 261he2 l:tb8 27 l:tcl =.
b) 17 'ii'a4+ lfi>e7! 18 ttJxcS .txd5
19 0-0-0 as 20 l:thel f8 21 .txd5
exdS 22 'ii'c6 l:tc8 23 ':xdS ':xc6 24
':xd8+ cJ;g7 was fine for Black in
Nesis-Kuuskrnaa, corr 1983.
c) 17 ttJxcS .txdS 18 0-0 (18 .txdS
'it'xdS 19 'ii'xdS ttJxdS 20 l:tcl l:tc8 21
':xc4 ttJb6 22 l:tc 1 ttJa4 23 ttJd3
':xcl+ 24 ttJxcl ttJxb2 112-112 Azmaiparashvili-Dolmatov,
USSR Ch 1986)
18 ... .txg2 19 'it>xg2 'ii'b6! (stronger
than the previously played 19 ... l:tc8)
20 'it'a4+? (after 20 'ii'f3, 20 ... l:tc8 21
ttJe4 ttJxe4 22 'ii'xe4 'ii'c6 is equal,
while Black can also try the more ambitious
20 ... ':d8!? 21 ttJe4 ~e7 -
Dvoretsky) 20 ... cJ;e7 21 ttJa6 ttJdS! +
Shneider-Dvoretsky, Frunze 1983.
16 ... ttJxf6
16 ... bxc3?! 17 dxe6 .txg2 18 exd7+
'ii'xd7 19 l:tel+ ~d8 20 bxc3 is dangerous
for Black.
17 'it'c1
17 'ii'a4+ ~f8 18 ttJe2 exdS 19 ttJf4
ttJh5 20 ttJxh5 l:txh5 + Yobava-v.Popov,
St Petersburg 1998.
17 ... l:th51S ttJe2 exdS 19 ttJf4 l:te5
20 b3 'fiIe7 21 bxc4 dxc4 22 .txb7
'ilixb7 23 'fiIxc4 ttJe4
Black has strong counterplay, Tisdall-Ardiansyah,
Jakarta 1997.
02)
15 'it'd2 (D)
Contrary to 15 .tg2, this move has
several purposes. Above all, of course,
it attacks the rook. When Black takes
on f6 with the queen or the rook, the
black knight is deprived of its ideal
square. By covering the el-aS diagonal,
White is also ready to capture the
bS-pawn or play ttJe4 without having
to worry about ... 'ii'a5+, and, additionally,
White can now castle queenside.
Black's two main continuations are
now:
D21: 15 ... l:txf6 70
D22: 15 ... 'it'xf6 71
However, since these obstruct the
knight Black has also experimented
with:

70 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLA V
a) IS .. Jlg6 160-0-0 lLlxf6 and now
the simplest line is 17 lLlxbS i.xdS 18
.%:.gl! ± (Yusupov).
b) IS ... .%:.hS 16 i.e2 .%:.h 7 17 0-0-0
lLlxf6 18 lLlxbS i.xdS 19 'ii'f4 ± Kasparov-Younglove,
London sim 1984.
D21}
IS .. .lbf6 16 i.g2
This is White's most solid option,
preparing kings ide castling and defending
the dS-pawn. 160-0-0 is more
ambitious. Then:
a) 16 ... b4 17 lLle4 exdS 18 lLlxf6+
'ii'xf6(18 ... lLlxf619i.xc4!?) 19i.xc4
lLlb6 20 :the 1 + ~f8 gave Black some
compensation in Langeweg-Kuijpers,
Hilversum 1984, even though I am far
from convinced that it is really enough.
The game continued 21 i.f1 as 22
'ii'e3 :tc8 23 'ii'eS 'ii'xeS 24 .%:.xeS d4 2S
i.h3 .%:.c7 26 :'del i.dS with counterplay.
b) 16 ... lLlb6 17 i.g2 i.xdS 18 f4
~f8 19 lLlxbS 'ii'e7 20 lLlc3 .%:.b8 21
:'hel 'ii'b7 22 i.e4 'ii'a6 23 i.c2 was
much better for White in Djubek-J.Urban,
COIT. 1989.
16 ... lLleS
Logically aiming for f3 or d3 but
16 ... lLlb6!?, increasing the pressure
against dS, is also interesting; e.g., 17
0-0 (17 0-0-0 is note 'b' to the previous
move) 17 ... i.xdS 18 lLlxdS (18
lLlxbS i.xg2 19 'ii'xd8+ lhd8 20
'it>xg2 .%:.d2 21 :tabl ~f8 22 lLlc3! =)
18 ... exdS 19 :tfel+ ~f8 20 .%:.eS 'ii'd6
21 '%:'ael b4 + Tasc R30-Thesing,
Munster 1993.
17 0-0 lLlf3+ 18 i.xf3 '%:'xf3 (D)
19lLlxbS
Or:
a) 19'it'e2 i.xdS (19 ... :'xc3 20 bxc3
'it'xdS 21 f3 is not sufficient for Black)
20 .%:.fdl (the right rook; if 20 :'adl,
20 ... :td3! is even better: 21 :'xd3 cxd3
22 'ii'xd3 i.c4 23 'ii'xd8+ :'xd8 +)
20 ... .%:.d3! 21 .%:.xd3 (after 21 lLlxbS,
21.. .i.f3 22 .%:.xd3 i.xe2 23 .%:.xd8+
.%:.xd8 24lLlxa7 :'d2 gives Black counterplay
according to Ribli but Black
can even interpolate 21... 'ii'b8!, and if
White now moves the knight then
... i.f3) 21...cxd3 22 'ii'xd3 i.c6 with
equality, Karpov-Ribli, Thessaloniki
OL 1988. Note that after 23 'ii'h7?!
Black has the excellent 23 ... 'ii'f6!.
b) 19 'ii'h6 i.xdS 20 :'adl was
suggested by Ribli as a better attempt
for White, continuing 20 ... 'ii'f6 21
'ii'xf6 :'xf6 22 lLlxdS exdS 23 :'xdS
.%:.c8 but even though I think Black has
fair chances of holding this ending,
20 ... .%:.d3!? still looks interesting.
19 ... i.xdS 20 '%:'fel .%:.b8! 21lLlc7+

BLACK'S 13TH MOVE ALTERNATNES 71
21ltJc3l:td3 22 'iWc2 i.f3 is fine for
Black. As long as White cannot swap
rooks with l:tdl he will be facing continuing
threats of Black's rooks penetrating
the 7th rank. Black's problem
is of course that his c-pawns are weak
but it is not that easy for White to pressurize
them without conceding further
advantages to Black; e.g., 23ltJe4 'iVd4
24 'ifa4+ ~f8 25 %:tac1 .txe4 26 %:txc4
'iWd5 27 l:texe4 l:txb2 +.
21 ... ~f8 22 'ii'h6+ ct;e7
Now:
a) 23 'iVh5?! is a mistake that gets
the knight almost trapped in enemy
territory. 23 ... .tc6! (instead of 23 ... l:td3,
as played in Yusupov-Antunes, Clichy
ECC 1993) leaves White in dire straits
according to Yusupov. For example, 24
'iVg5+ is met by 24 ... ct;d7. White's
best chance (which Yusupov for some
reason ignores) is 24 ltJa6 %:tb5 25
'ifg5+ lH6 26 %:tadl 'iVb6 27 'iVe5 (27
'iVd2 .te8! +) 27 ... .tf3 28 ltJc7 (28
%:td7+ ~xd7 29 'iVxf6 .td5 30 'iWxf7+
ct;c6 31 'ife8+ ct;b7 32 ltJb8 l:txb2 is
better for Black) 28 ... l:txb2 29 ltJe8!
.txdl 30 'ifxf6+ ~xe8 31l:txdll:tbl
with an equal position. The best White
has is the repetition 32 'iVh8+ 'i;e7 33
'ifh4+ ~e8 34 'ifh8+, etc.
b) Much better is 23 ltJxd5+ 'iVxd5
24 l:te2 l:.d3 25 'ifh4+, when Yusupov
thinks that White can claim an edge.
This actually looks right since Black
has difficulties defending the rook on
b8 and the f7-pawn at the same time.
For example, after 25 ... 'i;d7 26 'iVf4,
26 ... l:.f8 is close to being the only
sensible move, but this obviously is
not part of Black's plan.
022)
15 ... 'ilVxf6 (D)
w
There are now two main continuations
for White:
D221: 16ltJe4 72
D222: 16 0-0-0 73
16 .tg2 is simply not aggressive
enough. After 16 ... ltJe5 17 0-0 0-0-0
White has a difficult choice:
a) 18 'iWe3? is bad in view of
18 ... l:txh2! 19l:tfel %:txg2+ 20 ~xg2
ltJd3 21 ltJe4 'iVd4 22 l:te2 .txd5 +
Uhlmann-Enders, East Germany 1985.
b) 18 %:tfe1? is suggested by Enders
but is also wrong since it fails to avoid
the idea it seeks to prevent: Black can
play 18 ... l:txh2! anyway, and if 19 ~xh2
then 19 ... l:th8+ followed by ... ltJf3+.
c) 18 f4 is analysed by Shirov but
brings no relief either; e.g., 18 ... ltJd3
19 dxe6? (19ltJxb5 exd5) 19 ... 'ifd4+
20 'i;hl l:txh2+! 21 'i;xh2 l:th8+!

72 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
(Shirov considers this inadequate and
thinks Black should play 21...'iih8+,
but it is not clear what he has in mind
after 22 ~gl; White even seems able
to avoid the repetition after 22 ... 'iid4+
23 :'f2) 22 i.h3 :'xh3+! (Burgess).
Strangely, Shirov misses this move,
which forces mate after 23 ~xh3 'iih8+
24 ~g4 'iig7+ 25 ~h5 'iig6+ 26 ~h4
f5 27 'ii'e2 'ii'f6+ 28 'itih5 i.c6, etc.
0221)
16 ttJe4
This is the direct attempt to refute
15 ... 'i!ixf6.
16 ... li'f3
16 ... 'ii'e5 is probably wrong due to
17 O-O-O! 'i!ixe4 18 'i!ixh6 exd5 19
i.d3 cxd3 (19 .. :.f3 20 .l::.he1+ ~d8
21 i.e4! 'i!if6 22 'i!ixf6+ ttJxf6 23 i.f5
wins for White) 20 .:the1 0-0-0 21
%lxe4 dxe4 22 'i!id6 l:te8 23 h4 l:te6 24
'i!if4 %lf6 25 'i!ig5 and Black does not
have enough compensation. Black's
centre pawns are well blockaded and it
will be difficult to stop the h-pawn
without losing too much control.
17 ttJd6+ rJ;;e7 18 ttJxb7
Or:
a) 18 'i!ixh6 rJ;;xd6 19 %lgl ttJe5
(19 ... c3? 20 dxe6 cxb2 21 'ii'd2+ +-;
19 ... i.xd5!?) 20 i.e2 (20 dxe6? 'ii'e4+
21 ..t>d1 'i!id4+ 22 'i!id2 'ii'xd2+ 23
rJ;;xd2 ttJf3+ 24 ~e3 ttJxg 1 25 exf7
l:tf8 -+) 20 ... ttJd3+ (20 ... 'ii'e4!? 21 ~f1
i.xd5 with compensation) 21 i.xd3
cxd3 22 'ii'e3 i.xd5 23 'i!ixf3 i.xf3 24
~d2 c4 25 ~e3 i.e2 = Buj-Borwell,
COIT 1992.
b) 18 l:tg1 'ii'xd5 (18 ... i.xd5 19
'ii'xh6 ~xd6 20 i.g2 'ii'f6 21 'ii'xf6
ttJxf6 leads to another unclear endgame)
19 'ii'xh6 'ii'xd6 with reasonable
compensation.
18 ... l:thS! (D)
This is Yusupov's improvement on
18 ... 'ii'xh1? 19 d6+ ~e8 20 'ii'xh6
'ii'xb7, Shirov-Kamsky, USSR jr Ch
(Kapsukas) 1987, 21 'ii'h4 ttJb6 22
i.g2 ttJd5 23 l:td1 +-.
w
19d6+
The alternative for White is 19 %lgl,
and then:
a) 19 ... c3 20 'ii'c2! (20 bxc3 %le5+
21 i.e2 .:txe2+ 22 'ii'xe2 'ii'xc3+ 23
'itif1 'ii'xa1 + 24 rJ;;g2 'i!ie5 25 'ii'xe5
ttJxe5 26 ttJxc5 %lc8 27 .:tel %lxc5 28
l:txe5 ~d6 is only equal) 20 ... l:te5+ 21
i.e2 cxb2 (21.. . .:th8 22 h4 'ir'xd5 23
ttJa5) 22 :d1 +- Van Wely-Moll, Amsterdam
sim 1994.
b) 19 .. J:te5+ 20 i.e2 exd5 21 ~f1
±.
c) 19 ... l:txd5!? 20 i.g2 l:txd2 21
i.xf3 .:txb2 22 ttJa5 ttJe5 23 ttJc6+ (23

BLACK'S 13TH MOVE ALTERNATNES 73
.te2 l:t.d8) 23 ... tDxc6 24 i.xc6 .ud8
and Black has plenty of counterplay.
19 ... o;Ii>e8 20 .ugl c3?!
This leads to a difficult ending, so
Black needs to try something else:
a) 20 ... .uxh2!? 21 'it'f4! 'ii'xb7 22
0-0-0 gives White excellent compensation
according to Ionov. The strong
passed pawn on d6 hampers Black's
movements, while White is ready to
undermine the king's shelter with g4-
gS-g6.
b) 20 ... .ueS+ 21 .te2 'it'xb7 22
0-0-0 .ud8 23 f4 (23 .ugel I?) 23 ... .udS
24 'it'c3 tDf8 2S .uxdS 'it'xdS 26 .udl
'it'c6 27 i.f3 'it'b6 28 h4 .uxd6 29 .uxd6
'it'xd6 and the endgame should be OK
for Black.
21 bxc3 .ueS+ 22 i.e2 .uxe2+ 23
'it'xe2 ii'xc3+ 24 o;Ii>f1 ii'xal + 2S o;Ii>g2
'it'eS
An attempt to improve on 2S ... 'it'd4?!
26 .udl 'it'a4, Ionov-v.Popov, St Petersburg
1995, when 27 'ii'hS! 'it'e4+
28 'it>gl 'it'xb7 29 'ii'h8+ tDf8 30 d7+
o;Ii>e7 (30 ... 'it'xd7 31 .uxd7 o;Ii>xd7 32
'it'hS +-) 31 d8'it'+ .uxd8 32 .uxd8
'it>xd8 33 'it'xf8+ o;Ii>c7 34 'it'xf7+ ~b6
3S 'it'xb7+ 'ii>xb7 36 h4 c4 37 o;Ii>f1 is
winning according to Ionov.
26 ii'xeS tDxeS 27.ubl
27 tDxcs .uc8 28 tDe4 fS gives Black
no worries.
27 ... b4 28 tDxcs as 29 .uel tDd7 30
tDa4 ±
Tella-San Segundo, Athens 1997.
0222)
160-0-0 (D)
B
16 ... ~f8!
Another splendid idea ofYusupov's
in the 13 ... i.h6line. Black steps out of
any knight checks that might pop up in
the event of a future tDe4 or tDxbS,
while also removing the king from
the potentially dangerous e-file. Other
moves have proved less good for
Black:
a) 16 ... 0-0-0?! 17 tDe4 'it'eS 18
'it'xh6 'it'xe4 19 dxe6! 'it'xhl 20 i.h3
+- Quist-Thesing, Dieren 1988.
b) 16 ... exdS?! 17 i.g2 tDb6 18
.txdS tDxdS 19 tDxdS i.xdS (19 ... 0-0-0
20 tDxf6 .uxd2 21 o;Ii>xd2 i.xhl 22
.uxhl .uxf6 23 f4 ±) 20 'it'xdS 'it'c6 21
.uhel + 'ii>f8 22 h4 .uc8 23 hS! ±
Alterman - Har-Zvi, Israel 1993.
c) 16 ... i.xdS 17 tDxdS exdS and
now:
cl) 18 'it'xdS .ud8 (18 ... tDb6 19
.uel + 'ii>f8 20 'it'xcS+ 'ii>g8 21 'it'xbS!,
intending 'it'eS, is better for White -
Shirov) 19 f4100ks good for White at
fIrst sight but 19 ... tDb6 20 J:tel+ (endings
such as the one arising after 20
'ii'xd8+ 'it'xd8 21 .uxd8+ o;Ii>xd8 are

74 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
usually quite playable for Black; he
easily centralizes with ...'1fr>d7-d6 and
....!DdS, when his queens ide majority
is just as dangerous as White's passed
h-pawn) 20 ...'1fr>f8 21 'iWxcS+ 'iWd6 22
ii'xd6+ l:thxd6 23 i.e2 c3! 24 l:td 1 (24
bxc3? .!Da4 2S 'udl .!Dxc3 26 l:txd6
'uxd6 gives Black an edge) 24 ... cxb2+,
Gofshtein-Kacheishvili, Groningen
open 1993, 2S ~xb2 .!Da4+ 26 ~b3
a6! 27 l:txd6 l:txd6 28 'uc 1 'uh6! 29
l:tc2 (29 h4 'ue6) 29 ... 'uxh2 30 i.g4
l:txc2! 31 ~xc2 and now 31...b4, followed
by ... .!Dc3, draws according to
Kacheishvili, but this is only true if
Black holds the coming endgame with
.!D + /::, versus i. + 2/::': 32 '1fr>b3.!Dc3 33
i.f3 as 34 a3 .!DbS 3S axb4 axb4
(3S ... .!Dd4+? 36 '1fr>c4 .!Dxf3 37 bxaS
and Black is not able to catch up with
the a-pawn) 36 '1fr>xb4.!Dd4 37 i.dl. 1
presume this is a draw but White can
try for some time. Much simpler is
31....!DcS!, and only then ... as and ... b4,
which keeps the pawn on the queenside.
c2) 18 i.g2! .!Db6 19 i.xdS (19
'iWe3+? ~f8 20 ii'xcS+ '1fr>gS 21 'iWd4
l:teS! and Black is taking over the initiative,
Yusupov-Shirov, Linares 1993)
19 ... 0-0-0 (19 ... 'ucS 20 i.b7 l:tc7 21
i.a6 ±) 20 i.b7+ '1fr>c7 21 'iWxdS+
li'xdS 22 lIxdS ~xdS 23 i.a6 and in
this case the ending is better for White
since he is able to provoke a weakness
on the queenside.
Now we return to the position after
16 ... '1fr>fS (D):
17 f3!?
w
The main virtue of this strangelooking
move is to block the as-hI diagonal,
thus making IS dxe6 a threat,
and practically forcing the following
liquidation. Whether this is anything
worth striving for is an open question
since it seems that Black's knight will
playa greater role than White's bishop,
which is hampered by enemy pawns at
bS and c4 and the 'friendly' f3-pawn.
White has a large number of other
candidate moves:
a) 17 dxe6?! should be answered
by 17 ... i.xhl IS exd7 l:tdS, intending
... i.c6, rather than the apparently
clever 17 ... .!DeS, which fails in view of
IS e7+ ~g7 19 .!DdS li'f3 (I am not
sure whether there is a better square
available) 20 .!Dc7 with a large advantage
for White.
b) 17.!De4?! li'g618 dxe6i.xe419
f3 i.bl! 20 exd7 'udS =+= Robertsson­
H.Jensen, Copenhagen 1994.
c) 17 i. g2 .!DeS IS .!De4 .!Dd3+ 19
'iWxd3 cxd3 20 .!Dxf6 l:txf6 21 l:txd3
l:txf2 gives Black much the better
game according to Ftacnik.

BUCK'S 13TH MOVE ALTERNATIVES 75
d) 17 l:gl (played with the same
idea as 17 f3!? but now the h-pawn is
en prise) 17 ... ttJe5 (17 ... l:xh2!? 18
dxe6 ttJe5 19 'iVd6+ g8 20 f4 'iWf5 + Vujatovi6-Zontakh,
Kiev 1994.
e) 17 g4 l:g6 (the only move according
to Piket, but I must admit that
I cannot work out why it is essential to
place the rook on g6; in my opinion
17 ... l:h4 is a perfectly viable alternative
- for example, 18 dxe6 .i.xhl 19
exd7 l:d8 20 ttJxb5 l:xh2leaves Black
much better, or 18 l:gl, when, compared
to line 'd', having the pawn on
g4 is not particularly useful) 18 l:gl
(now if we compare with line 'd' there
has been some point in g4 as the h­
pawn is not attacked) 18 ... ttJe5 19 g5
(19 .i.e2!? and 19 'iWe3!? have been
suggested as possible improvements)
19 ... 'ii'f5 20 'iVe3 exd5 21 .i.h3 'iWf3
(not falling for 21...ttJd3+? 22 l:xd3
'ii'xd3 23 'ii'xc5+ cJ;g7 24 ':'g3 l:c6 25
'iVe7 'ii'd4 26 'iVxb7 ±) 22 'iWxc5+

76 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SIA V
tDxd5 'it'a6!, 20 tDxd5 .txd5 21.txd5
c3! or 20 g4 ':'g6 21 h3 b4 22 tDxd5
.txd5 23 .txd5 c3 and again Black is
better) 20 ... tDa4! 21 'it'c2 'it'a6! 22 tDa3
c3 and Black has a tremendous attack,
Kamsky-Shirov, Lucerne Wcht 1993.
17 ... exd5 18 tDxdS (D)
18 ..• .txdS!?
Black sacrifices a pawn, in return
for which he will get the safer king position
and the more active pieces.
IS ... 'it'd6 keeps the material balance
but allows White to generate unpleasant
pressure:
a) 19 tDc7 'it'xd2+ 20 ':'xd2 ncS 21
tDxb5 .txf3 22 .tg2 (22 ':'xd7 .txhl
23 tDd6 ltc6 24 tDf5 ~eS 25 ltxa7
J:bh2 26 .txc4 ltf6 and Black can defend)
22 ... .txg2 23 ltxg2 tDe5 1/2- 1 /2
Salov-Bareev, Madrid 1994.
b) 19 'it' g5 ! (D) is more dangerous;
the queen is removed from the d-file
and therefore 20 tDc7 is a threat. Now
we have:
bl) 19 ... tDe5 20 tDc7 'it'f6 21 'it'xf6
J:bf6 22 tDxaS .txf3 23 J::tgl .txdl 24
~xd 1 ltf2 25 .te2 tDd3 26 b3 ±; the
knight rejoins the game from c7, after
which Black will not be able to keep
his queenside intact.
b2) 19 ... J::tg6 20 'it'f5 tDe5 21 tDf4
J::tf6 22 'it'h3! (not, of course, 22 'it'h5?
'it'xd1+! 23 ~xdl .txf3+) 22 ... 'it'xdl+
23 'ittxdl .txf3+ 24 'iPc1 .txhl 25
'it'h4! tDd7 26 .th3 ltd6 27 .txd7
nxd7 2S 'it'hS+ ~e7 29 'it'e5+ 'iPdS 30
h4! ± Bareev-Filippov, Russia 1995.
Black has survived the middle game,
but with White's centralized queen
and strong knight supporting the h­
pawn, Black is in trouble.
b3) 19 ... ltbS!? (a surprising resource;
Black is now threatening
... tDe5 and since White cannot attack
the rook, any discovered knight moves
are not really dangerous as Black can
simply meet them with ... 'it'f6) 20 tDf4
(20 f4 I?) 20 ... 'it'f6 21 'it'xf6 tDxf6 22
.tg2 tDeS!? with a roughly equal position,
Savchenko-Filippov, Minsk 1996.
In fact, White must be careful to keep
the balance since Black is planning
... tDg7-f5-d4 with a good position.

BLACK'S 13TH MOVE ALTERNATNES 77
19 'ii'xdS ltJb6 20 'ii'xcS+ cJi>g8 (D)
Black's king is now relatively safe
and with all his pieces in active positions
he can easily claim compensation
for the pawn. White's main problem is
that he cannot just develop with, for
example, 21 i.g2 or 21 f4 as this
would run into 21...'iWxb2+ followed
by ... ltJa4+. Hence, White must retreat
the queen, when Black will increase
the pressure with ... ltJa4 anyway.
21 WVe3
Others:
a) 21 f4? 'ft'xb2+ 22 cJi>xb2 ltJa4+
23 ~a3 ltJxc5 24 cJi>b4 ltJe4, and now
Black wins after, for example, 25 i.g2
a5+ 26 'ifi>xb5? ltJc3+ 27 cJi>xc4 :'c8+.
b) 21 'iWd4 'iWxf3 22 'iff4 'ifxf4+ 23
gxf4 :'e8 and Black is much better,
Atalik-Ivanisevi6, Szeged 1997. White
still has great difficulties getting his
bishop out.
21...ltJa4 22 :'d4 ltJxb2 23 :'f4
'iVg7
112-112 Bagaturov-Jaracz, Pardubice
1994. A likely continuation is 24 'ug4
l:tg6 25 :'xg6 fxg6 26 ii'e6+ ~h7 27
'ifh3+ cJi>g8 28 ii'e6+ with a draw by
perpetual check.

6 Ideas with .. :iVa5
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 4:Jf3 4:Jf6 4 4:Jc3 e6 5
J.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 J.h4 g5 9
4:Jxg5 hxg5 10 i.xg5 4:Jbd7 11 g3
~a5 12 exf6 (D)
11 exf6 ~a5 does not really make
any difference as 12 g3 should be the
virtually automatic reply. White could
play 12 J.e2 but this loses the valuable
option of putting the bishop on the
hl-a8 diagonal.
11..:iWaS was a quite popular sideline
in the late 1980s but has now to a
large extent disappeared from tournament
play, and I doubt that its status
will improve.
Compared to .. :iWb6, 11..:iWaS does
not exert pressure against ... d4 and nor
does it help in advancing the c6-pawn.
That said, Black has other advantages,
since after ... b4 the clearance of the
5th rank makes the bishop on g5 vulnerable.
Moreover, if Black gets in
both ... b4 and ... c3 White's king can
sometimes be caught in the centre
when a black bishop arrives at a6. So,
why is this all that bad for Black then?
Well, the main problem is that Black
is spending so much time on attacking
purposes, which in the end may turn
out to backfire since the position easily
becomes too loose. Particularly the
advance ofthe b-pawn is controversial
since Black is rarely able to follow up
with a quick ... c5, meaning that the c­
file easily becomes sensitive, without
Black having adequate counterplay.
Typical plans for both sides
w
This is a very common type of position
for the .. :iWaS complex (it occurs

IDEAS WITH .. .'ila5 79
after 12 ... b4 13ltJe4 .ia6 14 'it'f3 'iWd5
or 12 ....ia6 13 'fif3 b4 14ltJe4 'fid5).
It is more often seen with the moves
.ie2 and ... 0-0-0 inserted but it does
not change much.
The obvious home for White's lightsquared
bishop is on g2, but White
must be careful he does not place it
there until Black has retreated his
bishop to b7. Otherwise White will
end up having his king stuck in the
centre with no real possibility of getting
castled. Hence, White usually has
to put his bishop on e2, which may
seem like the second-best option but
has the additional advantage that it attacks
the c4-pawn. Black's plan is
clear: he would like to play ....ib7 and
... c5, which may give White some
problems on the a8-hl diagonal, and,
he will attempt to castle queenside.
White should react by retreating his
dark-squared bishop to e3, from
where it protects the d4-pawn but also
makes room for the counter-attacking
ltJg5.
All in all, there seem to be some
clear-cut plans for both sides. White is
a pawn up and has the sounder position,
so if he can avoid immediate catastrophe
he will usually come out
better. As usual, however, Black's
dynamic play must not be underestimated.
The following diagram provides
an example.
From the previous diagram, the
game has taken the following logical
course: 15 .ie3 0-0-016 .ie2 c5. Now
White played ...
W
S. Bekker-Jensen - N. Pedersen
Copenhagen 1996
17ltJg5
Another idea is 17 ltJxc5 .ixc5 18
dxc5.ib7 19 'fixd5, when 19 ... .ixd5
is met by 20 f3!, although Black might
do better with 19 ... exd5!?
17 ... .ib7 18 O-O?!
18 'it' xd5! .ixd5 19 ltJxf7 is good
for White.
18 ... 1i'xg5! 19 1i'xb7+ 'iPxb7 20
.ixg5 cxd4 21 .ixc4 ltJe5 22 i.e2 d3
23 .idl .ic5
All Black's pieces are very active
and with the bishop having to stay on
dl White has difficulties coordinating.
In particular the b2-pawn is difficult to
defend.
24 .if4 .id4 25 %:tel
25 .ixe5 .ixe5 26 %:tbl is possibly
better but White's worries are not over
yet despite the presence of oppositecoloured
bishops. With rooks on the
board Black can still create problems
for White.
25 ... ltJc4 26 .if3+ 'ifi'b6 27 l:abl e5

80 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
28 .te3? .txe3 29 fxe3 tDd2 30 'itg2
tDxbl 31 lIxbl lIh6 0-1
Quick Summary
The ... 'ii'a5 systems enjoyed a fair
amount of popularity from the mid-
1980s to the early 1990s but are now
rarely seen. This is first and foremost
in view of the line 12 ... .ta6 (12 ... b4 is
Line A and might transpose to Line B
after 13 tDe4 .ta6 14 'ii'f3 but White
has the additional possibility of 14
b3!?) 13 'ii'f3 (13 a3 was for long considered
promising for White but is less
clear in my opinion) 13 ... b4 14 tDe4
'ir'd5 (14 ... 0-0-0 is more often seen but
is not better) 15 .te3, when Black's
dynamic play does not seem to make
up for his structural weaknesses. This
is covered in Line B.
The Theory of Ideas with
.. :iia5
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tDf3 tDf6 4 tDc3 e6 5
.tg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .th4 g5 9
tDxg5 hxg5 10 .txg5 tDbd7 11 g3
'ir'a5 12 exf6
Now:
A: 12 ... b4 80
B: 12 ... .ta6 81
A)
12 ... b4 13 tDe4 .ta6 (D)
14 b3!?
This principled decision is the main
reason that I prefer 12 ... .ta6 to 12 ... b4,
although they often transpose to each
other. White avoids any trouble on the
w
a5-el diagonal, while also trying to
take advantage of Black having placed
his bishop on a6 so early. Alternatives
are:
a) 14 \i'f3 transposes to Line B.
b) 14 .te2 0-0-0150-0 \i'f5 16 'ii'c2
tDb6 17 lIad 1 (positionally White's
game is very promising but he has to
be careful since there are several
slightly loose pieces, such as the g5-
bishop, the e4-knight and queen on c2;
17 f3 c5! 18 b3 .tb7 19 .txc4 tDxc4
20 bxc4 cxd4 21 'ii'd3 .txe4 22 'ir'xe4
'ir'xe4 23 fxe4 .tc5 24 ~g2 'ifi'b7 with
compensation, Shneider-Neverov, Lvov
1985) 17 ... 'ii'h3 18.th4 lIxh4 19 gxh4
.th6 was unclear in Timman-Torre,
Wijk aan Zee 1981.
c) 14 .te3 0-0-0 (14 ... 'ir'f5!?) 15
'ir'c2 tDb6 16 b3 transposes to the main
line.
14 ... 0-0-0
Other moves are also worth considering:
a) 14 ... 'iWd5!? 15 'ii'c2! cxb3 (according
to Levin, 15 ... tDb6 16 lIcl! is
much better for White) 16 axb3 .txfl

IDEAS WITH ... "iia5 81
17 ~xf1 cS 18 ~gl cxd4 19 1:txa7
ttJeS 20 1:txa8+ 'it' xa8 21 ttJd2 is better
for White despite the momentary clumsiness
of the king and rook.
b) 14 ... ttJb6 IS bxc4 (I am not sure
whether Black, after IS 'it'c2, has anything
better than transposing to the
main line with IS ... 0-0-0) IS ... ttJxc4
16 'it'b3 'ii'dS 17 f3 .tbS 181:tc1 ttJa3
19 'ii'xdS cxdS 20 ttJd2 .td6 21 'ifilf2
with an edge for White, Mecking-Matsuura,
Sao Paulo Z 1995.
15 'iVc2 ttJb6 16 .te3 e5!? (D)
Black cannot delay his counters trike
for too long since White will be much
better as soon as he consolidates.
Hence this push is clearly Black's best
chance. Levin mentions 16 ... c3 17
.txa6+ 'ii'xa6 18 'iWe2! ±, while the attempt
to safeguard the king with
16 ... ~b7171:tc1 ~a818 .te2.tb7 appears
too slow: 19 0-0 'ii'fS 20 h4 .th6
(20 ... c3!?) 21 ttJcS 'it'h3 22 .txh6
1:txh6 23 'ii'e4 1:tg8 24 hS ttJdS!? 2S
ttJxb7 ~xb7 26 1:txc4 1:txf6 (Komarov-Kamsky,
USSR 1987) 27 'iWg2!?
'iWxg2+ 28 ~xg2 ttJf4+ 29 ~f3 ±.
W
17 dxe5
171:tdl! exd4 18 ':xd4looks stronger.
Then after 18 ... 1:txd4 19 .txd4
Black's counterplay appears too slow,
and nor does the attempt to avoid exchanges
by 18 ... 1:te8 19 .te2lead anywhere.
17 ...'iVxe5 181:tcl1:te8 19 f3 ttJd5
20.td2
If the bishop moves anywhere else,
for example 20 .txa7 or 20 .tf2, then
comes 20 ... ttJc3 with strong pressure.
20 ...'iWxf6
20 ... 1:txh2?! 21 1:txh2 'iWxg3+ 22
1:tf2 .tcS 23 ~dl1:txe4 24 'ii'xe4 'ii'xf2
2S .txc4 .txc4 26 1:txc4 and White
went on to win in Khenkin-Feher,
Cappelle la Grande 1992 .
21 .te2 'iWd4 22 .txc4
White has to be a little careful here;
22 bxc4? 1:txh2 23 ':'xh2 'iWgl + 24
.tfl 'iWxh2 would give Black a tremendous
attack.
22 ....txc4 23 'iWxc4 'iWxc4 24 bxc4
ttJf6
The position is equal - Khenkin.
B)
12 ....ta6 (D)
13 'iWf3
The other main option for White is
the attempt to hold up Black's b-pawn
with 13 a3, which renders the bishop
on a6 misplaced but also leaves a hole
on b3. After 13 ... 0-0-0 we have:
a) 14 .te3 ttJeS!? (aiming for rapid
counterplay; note that 14 ... ttJcS? is
bad in view of IS 'iWf3!, and while
Savchenko's 14 ... ttJxf6!? is as yet

82 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
w
B
untested, 14 ... c5 leads to an inferior
position for Black: 15 .tg2 cxd4 16
.txd4 .tc5 17 O-O! lDxf6 18 .txc5
.l:txdl 19 .l:taxdl and White had more
than adequate compensation in Savchenko-Novikov,
Sibenik 1989, especially
as Black cannot re-deploy his
bishop with 19 ... .tb7? due to 20.tb4
'iWb6 21 :'d6!) 15 f4 c5! 16 fxe5 cxd4
17 .txd4 .tb7 18 .l:tgl .l:txh2 19 .te2
'iWc7!. A critical position has arisen, in
which Black seems to have enough
counterplay; Black's last move prepares
... .tc5, which if played immediately
would have been met by .txc5!.
Now it is not easy for White to break
the pin on the d-file. After 20 .l:tcl,
which occurred in Komljenovi6-Kaidanov,
Andorra 1991, according to
Kaidanov Black should first safeguard
the b-pawn with 20 ... a6! and after 21
b4! Black's bishop should enter via
another route, viz. 21.. . .th6 22 .l:tc2
i.e3 23 .txe3 .l:txdl + followed by
... 'iWxe5 with unclear play.
b) 14 i.g2lDc5 150-0 lDb3 16 'ii'f3
(D) and then:
bl) 16 ... lDxd4?! has not been given
proper attention but is good for White.
17 'ii'e4 i.b7 (17 ... 'iWb6 18 :'adl c5 19
i.e3 i.b7 20 'ii'xb7+ 'ii'xb7 21 .txb7+
~xb7 22lDxb5 is good for White) 18
.l:tadl 'ii'b6 (18 ... .l:td7, intending ... c5,
allows a promising queen sacrifice: 19
.l:txd4 c5 20 .l:txd7 .txe4 21 :'fdl
.txg2 22 'ittxg2 'iWb6 23 .l:txf7 'iWc6+
24 f3 ±) 19 .te3 .tc5 20 'tWe5 .l:td7?!
(20 ... lDb3 might be a better try, even
though 21lDe4 .txe3 22 fxe3 'iWxe3+
23 ~hllooks very strong for White)
21 .l:td2 .l:thd8 22l:Hdl, when Black is
more or less in zugzwang and in Borisenko-Gusev,
USSR 1950 felt obliged
to try 22 ... lDf3+ 23 .txf3 .txe3, when
White has a promising choice between
24 'ii'xe3 'ii'xe3 25 .l:txd7 'ilf'xf3 26
.l:txd8+ rl;c7 27 .l:tld7+ ~b6 28 .l:tb8
and the game continuation 24 .l:txd7
i.xf2+ 25 ~g2 .l:txd7 26 :'xd7 ~xd7
27~h5.
b2) 16 ... i.b7 17 .l:tadl and now:
b21) 17 ... b4 18lDe4 bxa3 19 bxa3
i.xa3 20 i.e3 (better than 20 h4 .tb4
21 i.e3 'iWb5 22 lDc5 a5! 23 lDxb7

IDEAS WITH .. :iia5 83
'iti>xb7 24 'ii'e2, Beliavsky-Novikov,
USSR Ch 1990, when 24 ... :'dS! intending
... a4-a3 favours Black according
to Beliavsky) 20 ... i.b4 (Beliavsky
suggests 20 ... 'ii'hS!? 21 'iVxhS l:txhS
with the crude plan of ... i.b2 and
pushing the a-pawn) 21 tiJcs i.xcs
(21...tiJxcS 22 dxcS :'xdl 23 l:txdl
i.xcs is the lesser evil) 22 dxcS 'iVbS
23 :'xd8+ ':xd8 24 'ii'hs and White
has a clear advantage, Gomez Esteban-Novikov,
Pamplona 1990/1.
b22) 17 ... :'d7 18 'ii'e3 'iVb619 tiJe2
cS 20 dxcS i.xcS was first suggested
by Beliavsky and then tested in Savchenko-Wells,
London Lloyds Bank
1994: 21 i.xb7+ 'ii'xb7 22 l:txd7 'ii'xd7
23 'ii'e4 'ii'b7 24 'ii'xb7+ 'iti>xb7 2S l:tdl
'iPc6 26 h4 eS and Black had some
compensation, although it is not clear
whether it is sufficient. For the moment
Black is a pawn down but the
f6-pawn is weak. Moreover, Black has
a queenside majority and the more active
pieces.
Now we return to the position after
13 'ii'f3 (D):
B
13 •.. b4
Black should not be thinking along
defensive lines, as the following examples
show:
a) 13 ... l:tc8? 14 i.e2 b4 (Black's
previous move signals his intention to
play ... cS, but it seems to be the wrong
plan; here 14 ... cS is ill-advised due to
IS dS i.b7 160-0 and now 16 ... tiJb6
17 'ii'e3 tiJxdS 18 tiJxdS i.xdS 19
l:tadl i.b7 20 i.g4 with a very strong
attack, or 16 ... b4?! 17 'ii'e3 bxc3 18
dxe6, winning) IS tiJe4 cS 16 dS! (in
LSokolov-Kamsky, Belgrade 1991
Black was doing fairly well after 16
dxcS tiJxcs 17 tiJxcs i.xcS 18 0-0
i.d4 19 flf4 'ii'eS 20 'ii'xeS i.xeS)
16 ... exdS 17 'ii'fS! dxe4 (other moves
are strongly met by i.g4; for example,
17 ... c3!? 18 i.g4 fibS 19 'ii'xdS cxb2
20 l:tdl ± - Kramnik; 17 ... i.b7 could
be tried though) 180-0-0 l:tc7 19 i.g4!
with a decisive attack, Kramnik-Ehlvest,
Riga 1995. This is probably best
illustrated if Black adopts the counter-attacking
attempt 19 ... 'iWxa2, which
fails, as Kramnik shows, to 20 :'xd7
'iVaI + 21 'iird2 'iWxb2+ 22 'iPe3 'iWc3+
(22 ... 'iVd4+!? 23 l:txd4 cxd4+ 24
'iirxd4 i.cS+ 2S 'ii'xcS!? ':xcS 26
'iirxcs b3 27 'iti>b4 :'g8 28 h4 +-) 23
~f4 i.b7 24 l:thd1.
b) 13 ... i.b7?! carries the idea 14
i.g2 b4 IS tiJe4 cS but White obtains a
substantial advantage with the simple
16 tiJd6+! i.xd6 17 'iWxb7 l:[d8 18
'iWc6! (the two possible moves with the
d-pawn are also good, but this is
clearer) 18 ... i.b8 19 dS 0-0 20 dxe6

84 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
lbeS 21 'iWb7! ':fe8 220-0 ':xe6 23
':adl ':de8 24 'iWe4 'iWbs 2S 'iWh4 1-0
Sakaev-Govedarica, Belgrade 1996.
Black will be mated in a few moves.
14lbe4 (D)
14 ..... d5
Centralizing the queen is an important
part of Black's opening plan. The
queen attacks the d4-pawn and defends
Black's own pawn on c4, thus
making it possible to reactivate the
light-squared bishop on b7, and preparing
the thematic ... cS advance. It is
my feeling that playing ... 'iWdS immediately
is the most accurate, since
there is no point in any of the advances
of the queenside pawns right now.
However, 14 ... 0-0-0 has been the
most common. There has been several
attempts from White to punish Black's
opening play straight away, including
IS b3 and IS lbcs. My preference is
for IS .te2 (1S .tg2? is a common
mistake; White's king is then caught in
the middle ofthe board after IS ... c3!)
IS ... 'iWdS 16 .te3 .tb7 (16 ... cS was
dealt with in the introduction) 17 0-0
(the direct 17 lbgS might in fact be
more accurate) and then:
a) 17 ... .:g8 is aimed against lbgS
and carries the additional possibility
of rounding up the f6-pawn following
... ':g6, but nevertheless seems too
slow. Even 18 h4, renewing the idea of
lbgS, is an option, while 18 'iWf4 cS 19
f3 cxd4 20 .txc4 is also promising according
to Beliavsky and Mikhalchishin.
The game Fodor-Tompa, corr.
1977 continued 18 ':fc1 cS 19 lbd2
lLlxf6 (19 ... cxd4!?) 20 'iWxdS (20 dxcS!?)
20 ... exdS 21 dxcSlbd7 22 a3 (22 c6 is
also possible; then after 22 ... .txc6 23
.txa7 .tg7 White can try 24 lbxc4
dxc4 2S ':xc4 ~b7 26 .td4, which
nets four pawns for apiece) 22 ... .tg7
23 lIabl as 24lbf3 ~c7 2SlbgS d4!
26 .tf4+ .teS 27 lbxf7 .txf4 28
lbxd8 lIxd8! and Black's dynamic
pawn-chain promises enough counterplay
after, for example, 29 gxf4 c3.
b) 17 ... cS 18lbd2 (18lbgS is not
so clear here, since after 18 ... 'iWxgS!
19 'iWxb7+ ~xb7 20 .txgS cxd4 21
.txc4lbeS 22 .te2 d3 23 .td 1 .tcS all
Black's pieces take up active posts,
while White must keep a watchful eye
on the threat posed by Black's centre
pawns, S.Bekker-lensen - N.Pedersen,
Copenhagen 1996) 18 ... lbxf6 19
dxcS c3 (19 ... lbd7!? is another possibility)
20 bxc3 bxc3 21 c6 'iWxc6 22
lIac1 lbdS 23 .td4 .ta3 24 lbe4! and
White has a clear advantage, Mikhalevski-N.Pedersen,
Arhus 1997.
15.te3

IDEAS WITH .. :ila5 85
It is very possible that White can
leave the d-pawn en prise for a while
but since .i.e3 is a common part of
White's plan (vacating g5 for the
knight), White can just as well retreat
the bishop immediately.
15 ... c5
I had very much wanted this idea to
work. Other moves seem too slow.
15 ... 0-0-0 16 .i.e2 transposes to the
note to Black's 14th move above, while
15 ... .i.b7 is kind of illogical since it
permits White to fianchetto his bishop
without getting his king stuck in the
centre following a ... c3 thrust.
16:dl!
Simple and strong. 16 dxc5?! 0-0-0
17 .i.g2 lDe5 is very risky for White;
for example, 18 'il'e2 'il'd3 19 'il'dl c3
20 bxc3 'it'c4.
16 ... 0-0-0
Alternatively, 16 ... .i.b7 17 .i.g2
0-0-018 O-O! 'it'xe4 19 'it'xe4 .i.xe4 20
.i.xe4lDxf6 21.i.f3 re-establishes material
equality, but is very good for
White in view of his bishop-pair and
the exposed position of Black's king.
17 .i.g2 (D)
17 b3? seeks to exploit the fact that
the bishop on a6 is undefended and attempts
to open lines against Black's
king. However, with it, White neglects
his development, causing serious trouble:
17 ... lDxf6! 18 lDg5 (18 .i.g2 is
perhaps the lesser evil but it is obvious
then that 17 b3 was mistaken; 18 'ili'xf6
'ili'xe4 19 :gl ':xh2 is also clearly
better for Black) 18 ... 'iIi'xf3 19 lDxf3
.i.b7 20 .i.g2 c3 + Khenkin-S.Pedersen,
Schaan 1997.
B
17 ... c3
This is the thematic continuation. If
17 ... cxd4 18 ~xd4 c3, then the most
convincing is 19 .i.xc3! lDe5 20 .i.xe5
'ili'xe5 21 :xd8+ ~xd8 22 .i.f1! ±.
18 bxc3 bxc3
18 ... 'iIi'xa2 19lDxc5! wins for White,
and the attempt to reach a better version
of the line in the previous note
with 18 ... cxd4 is not good either in
view of 19 cxd4 (19 .i.xd4 lDe5 20
.i.xe5 'ili'xe5 21 ':xd8+

7 Move-orders and Various
Deviations
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 tLlc3 e6 5
~g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 ~h4 g5 9
tZ:lxg5 hxg5 10 ~xg5 tLlbd7 (D)
w
We have now examined most of the
main lines in the Botvinnik System
but both sides have a variety of other,
less well explored paths.
So far I have consistently been employing
the move-order 11 exf6, which
allows any of Black's 13th move alternatives
discussed in Chapter 5, and
thus gives Black a larger choice of options.
White might avoid these with 11
g3. Then 11...~b7 12 ~g2 'iWb6 13
exf6 c5 14 d5 0-0-0 15 0-0 b4leads to
the main lines examined in Chapters
2-4, but both sides can vary from this
sequence, and we shall look at these
possibilities here. The most important
idea for Black is to force White either
to part with his dark-squared bishop or
to enter a position where Black has
two minor pieces against a rook. This
occurs if B lack chooses 11 ... .l:g8 !? (or
11 ... ~b7 12 ~g2 .l:g8 but this is less
flexible).
Quick Summary
White has two move-orders in attempting
to reach the main lines, 11 g3
(Line A) and 11 exf6 (Line B). 11 g3
has the advantage of avoiding Black's
13th move alternatives considered in
Chapter 5 but on the other hand, it allows
a few others. 11... b4?! (Line AI)
cannot be recommended, but I1..J:tg8
(Line A2) is interesting and it is a matter
of taste whether to allow this or the
aforementioned 13th move alternatives
(after 11 exf6). The main line after
11.. . .l:g8 runs 12 h4 (12 ~xf6 is
Line A21 but is considered less critical)
12 ... .l:xg5 13 hxg5 tLld5 14 g6
fxg6 15 'iWg4 'iWe7, when White has
three options. 16 'iWxg6+ (Line A222)
aims for an ending in which White
will attempt to make his kingside
pawns tell, but I think Black's defensive
resources are adequate. 16 ':h8

MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS 87
(Line A221) is more dangerous but
Shirov's discovery 16 ... ttJxc3 17 bxc3
'iWa3 seems to give Black strong counterplay.
16 .tg2 (Line A223) is probably
the most critical and the assessment
largely depends on whether Black has
sufficient counterplay after 16 ... 'iif7
17 .te4 ttJe7 18 ttJxb5 cxb5 19 .txa8.
Black has more possibilities to deviate
after 11 exf6, but most of them
cannot really be recommended. The
line 11.. . .tb7 12 g3 c5 (Line B3) 13
d5 'iib6 14 .tg2 0-0-0 (there is probably
room for some new ideas after
14 ... b4!?) 150-0 b4 16 ttJa4 'iWb5 17
dxe6 seems to have been exhausted.
Savchenko's 21..J:td4! looks at least
equal for Black.
Holding back the ... c5 advance a little
longer is a relatively unusual way
of playing the black side of the
Botvinnik. Following 11.. . .tb7 12 g3
'iib6 13 .tg2 0-0-0 14 0-0, 14 ... .th6
(Line B23) looks very interesting and
right now the onus is on White to find
something after 15 .txh6 .l:txh6 16
ttJe4 c5 17 'iif3 .l:txf6!. On the other
hand, the lines considered under B21
and B22 are relatively unimportant.
The Theory of Various
Deviations
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 e6 5
.tg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .th4 g5 9
ttJxg5 hxg5 10 .txg5 ttJbd7
Now:
A: 11 g3 87
B: 11 exf6 98
A)
11 g3 (D)
B
We shall now consider two main
options:
AI: 11 ... b4?! 87
A2: 11 ... l:t.g8 88
Or 1l....tb7 12 .tg2 and now:
a) 12 .. :~c7 13 exf6 is Line Bl.
b) 12 ... 'iWb6 13 exf6 transposes to
the Main Lines (Chapter 2-4) or Line
B2, considered later in this chapter.
c) 12 ... .l:tg8 is possible but in general
Black keeps more options open by
delaying the bishop fianchetto when
adopting the ... l:tg8 line.
AI)
11 ... b4?!
This sharp continuation is not entirely
justified. Black will get three
pieces for the queen and this would indeed
be quite OK if he had time to
consolidate without losing too many
pawns on the way.
12 ttJe4 ttJxe4 13 .txd8 'iitxd8 (D)

88 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
w
16 'ife2 ttJd5 17 'it'xc4l:tb8 180-0
l:tb6 19 :fe1 ttJ7f6 20 h4
White is slightly better, Lipiridi­
Lutovinov, corr. 1983.
A2)
1l ... l:tg8 (D)
w
14 i.g2
This is now generally accepted as
the strongest.
14 'ii'f3!? is possible, while Ivanchuk
chose 14 i.xc4 against Illescas
in Linares 1994. That game went
14 ... ttJb6 15 i.d3 f5 16 i.xe4 fxe4 17
'ii'g4 (17 'ife2 a5 18 'ii'xe4 ttJd5 19
:c 1 i.d7 20 f4 a4 21 'iff3 a3 22 b3
ttJc3 23 l:tc2 i.e7 24 h4 ~c7 gave
Black some counterplay in Shestaperov-Agrinski,
USSR 1967) 17 ... i.d7
18 'ii'xe4 ttJd5 19 0-0 ri;c7 20 l:tac1
~b7 21 f4 i.e7 22:f3 l:.afS 23 a3 and
White kept the pressure.
14 ... f5 15 exf6
15 f3! is possibly even stronger.
Now after 15 ... ttJg5, Burgess, in NCO,
recommends 16 'ifcl, picking up the
c4-pawn and another one, while Varnusz
thinks that 16 f4 ttJe4 17 'ii'c2
i.b7 18 'ii'xc4 is also very good since
18 ... l:h6 is met by 19 g4!. I will not
disagree with either.
15 ... ttJexf6
15 ... ttJdxf6? 16 i.xe4 ttJxe4 17 'iff3
+- P.Nikolic-Bagirov, Sarajevo 1980.
At this point White has to select between:
A21: 12 i.xf6 89
A22: 12h4 91
12 i.h4 maintains the pin but
places the bishop passively. Black has
several options:
a) 12 .. :ir'b6 13 exf6 e5!? (playing
along the main lines suggests itself as
White's bishop is strangely placed on
h4, but often it becomes a disadvantage
for Black to have the rook on g8
since White might throw in the annoying
'ifh5 at some point; anyway, the
simple 13 ... i.b7 is considered in 'c'
below) 14 'ife2 b4 15 ttJe4 i.a6 16
0-0-0 0-0-0 17 d5 'ifa5 18 dxc6 'ii'xa2
19 i.h3 (19 cxd7+ l'hd7 20 l:xd7

MOVE-ORDERS AND VAR,OUS DEVIATIONS 89
cJtxd7 is unclear according to Vilela)
19 ... .th6+ 20 f4 exf4 21 cxd7+ ~b8
22 'ir'h5 l:tg5! 23 .txg5 c3! 24 lbxc3
(24 bxc3? b3 -+) 24 ... bxc3 25 bxc3
.txg5 1/2- 1 /2 Vilela-Chekhov, Halle
1981. White cannot avoid a perpetual
check after, for example, 26 'ir'xg5
'ir'al+ 27 ~c2'ir'a2+ 28 ~c1.
b) 12 ... 'ir'aS!? (this makes some
sense as in many of the normal ... 'ir'aS
lines an important part of White's plan
is to retreat the dark-squared bishop to
e3; this is now ruled out) 13 exf6.ta6
(13 ... b4!? 14 lbe4 .ta6) 14 a3 0-0-0
15 .tg2lbc5 160-0 lbb3 (16 ... lbd3 17
'ir'f3 .tb7 18 b4!? 'ir'c7, Magerramov­
Savchenko, Helsinki 1992, and now
19 'ir'e3 is very good for White) 17
'ir'h5'ir'c7 18l:tadllbxd4 19lbe4 c5 is
unclear according to Beliavsky and
Mikhalchishin.
c) 12 ... .tb7 13 .tg2'ir'b6 (13 ... 'ir'c7
14 exf6 0-0-0 15'ir'h5!? lbb6 16 ndl
.tb4! 17 0-0 nh8 18 'ir'f3 .txc3 19
bxc3 l:tdg8 20 l:tfel c5! 21 'ir'xb7+
'ir'xb7 22 .txb7+ ~xb7 23 dxc5 lbd5
was fine for Black in the game Komljenovic-Antunes,
Saragossa 1996) 14
exf60-0-0 150-0 lbe5!? 16'ir'h5lbg6
17 .tg5 nh8 intending ... .th6 with at
least an equal position, Mejak-Krivic,
corr. 1981.
A21)
12.txf6
This has never been considered
very critical but is seen now and then if
White wishes to avoid the complications
of Line A22.
B
12 ... lbxf613 exf6 (D)
13 .•. 'ir'xf6
Black hurries to re-establish material
equilibrium but leaving the queenside
has its disadvantages. Hence,
another option is 13 ... .tb7 14 .tg2
and then:
a) 14 ... 'ir'b6 150-00-0-016 'it'h5!
l:tg6 17 lbe4 l:txd4 (this is criticized
by many sources but it is difficult to
see a better move; e.g., 17 ... 'ir'xd4 18
l:tadl'ir'xb2 19l:txd8+ cJtxd8 20 'ir'h8
'ir' a3 21 l:td 1 + cJtc 7 22 'it'h 7 l:th6 23
'ir'xf7+ ~b6 24 l:td7 and White wins)
18'ir'h7'ir'c7 19 h4 c5 20 l:tfel nd8 21
l:tadl .td5 22lbc3 ± Korchnoi-Bellon,
Las Palmas 1981.
b) 14 ... 'ir'c7 (while this does not
support the attack on d4, it has the advantage
that f7 is protected) 15 0-0
(White is not able to utilize his queen
actively without giving up his d-pawn
after this; 15 'it'f3 0-0-0 16 l:tdl is another
possibility) 15 ... 0-0-0 16 'ilt'c2!?
l:txd4 17 a4 .tc5? (Black's attack is insufficient
after this; 17 ... a6 is safer,

90 THE B01YINNIK SEMI-SlAV
even though I would rather be White
after 18 l:.ad1) 18 axbS l:.d3 19 b6!?
(making sure that the a8-h1 diagonal
will not open easily) 19 ... .txb6 20 ttJe4
1li'eS 21 'iWxc4 l:.gd8 22 1li'c2 1li'dS 23
l:.ac1 Novikov-Thesing, Berlin 1991.
My source says 1-0 here. White is obviously
much better but going as far as
resigning looks premature.
14 .tg2 .tb7 15 ttJxb5 (D)
Consistent but perhaps not the best.
White has to act quickly, and slow
attempts like IS 0-00-0-0 are not advisable,
but IS a4 is interesting. Then
if lS ... b4, 16 ttJe41li'fS 17 l:.c1, as in
the game Liberzon-Lombard, Biel IZ
1976, gives White an edge. Fortunately,
Black has the much superior
lS ... 0-0-0!' After 16 axbS cxbS 17
.txb7+

MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS 91
excellent attacking chances, and White
must be on the alert to stop Black
breaking through.
A22)
12 h4 (D)
B
The critical continuation. Black has
to enter the following complications,
for if he continues similarly to the
main lines, say 12 ... ..tb7 13 ..tg2 'ili'b6
14 exf6, the move h4 is clearly more
useful than ... :tg8.
12 ... .:.xgS
It is possible to play 12 ... .tb7 13
..tg2, and only then 13 ... .:.xgS but this
seems only to limit Black's options
later on.
13 hxgSliJdS14 g6 fxg6 IS'iIi'g4!
Let us just pause for a moment and
sum up what has happened in the last
few moves. Black has two minor
pieces for a rook, which suggests that
the long-term chances are going to be
in Black's favour. However, he is behind
in development and the white
rook is ready to race down the open
h-file, either taking advantage of the
7th rank or running all the way to h8
and preventing Black from developing
his dark-squared bishop. Furthermore,
the weak g-pawn is an obvious
target, while Black is also struggling
with the worse light-squared bishop.
Indeed, the light squares in general
seem to be White's operating area
with ideas such as ':'h7 and .tg2-e4 or
liJe4-d6 hanging in the air.
Does Black's position have nothing
going for it, then? Things aren't so
bad, but interest has declined in taking
on the patient manoeuvring required
to defend Black's position. That said,
if Black does succeed in bringing his
forces workably together, then his
chances should be quite decent.
White's last move attacks the g6-
pawn immediately, but there may also
be a point in preventing the coming
defensive manoeuvre by IS l:th7!?
Let us first have a brief look at this:
a) IS ... 'iIi'aS 16 'ili'f3 'itd8 17 ..th3
.tb4 18 'itn! ..txc3 19 ..txe6 and now
rather than 19 ... ..txd4? 20 ..txdS cxdS
21 IIdl with a strong attack for White,
as in Knaak-Tischbierek, East German
Ch 1981, Black should continue
19 ... ..txb2 20 .txdS 'ili'c3! with a complicated
position - Sveshnikov.
b) IS ... ..te7 16 'ili'f3 liJf8 17 l:tg7
'ili'd7 18 ..th3 liJxc3 19 bxc3 ..tb7 20
'ili'f7+ 'itd8 21 ~e2 with compensation
as it will be hard for Black to free
himself without losing at least a pawn,
Pelletier-Antunes, Erevan OL 1996.
IS ... 'iIi'e7 (D)

92 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
The counter-attacking 15 ... 'iWa5?
has been more or less refuted by 16
'iWxe6+ 'itt>d8 17 i.g2! ltJxc3 18 ~f1!
ltJd5 19 'tWxc6ltJ5b6 (19 ... ltJc7 20 e6)
20 lth8 'iWb4 21 e6 l:tb8 22 exd7 ltJxd7
23 a3! ± Knaak-Van der Wiel, Lugano
1989. Note that Black cannot play
23 ... 'tWxb2? due to 24 l:txf8+! ltJxf8 25
'iWf6+ ~c7 26 'tWf4+ winning.
i.g2 i.b7 19 i.e4 0-0-0 20 i.xg6 'tWe7
21 a4! (White has to play aggressively
to maintain an advantage) 21...a6 22
l:th7 i.g7 23 i.e4ltg8 24 'tWf3 (Kamsky
suggests 24 lth5!? {intending
l:tg5} 24 ... ltd8!? 25 'iWg5 'fi'xg5 26
l:txg5 i.f8 27ltg6lte8;t) 24 ... ~c7 25
axb5 axb5, Kamsky-Serper, Groningen
PCA qual 1993, and now White's
best seems to be 26 'iWg4!? It is not
that easy for Black to free his position
while White might slowly build up
with f4, ~d2 and at some stage offer a
queen exchange with 'tWh4. The problem
with ... b4 for Black is that it
merely weakens his pawns and in the
current position, for example, they are
simply picked up by 27 l:ta4!.
There are now three possibilities
for White to increase the pressure:
A221: 16lth8 92
A222: 16 'iixg6+ 93
A223: 16 i.g2 95
A221)
16 l:th8 ltJxc3
The pin of the f8-bishop does not
look like a major problem, but it is
more annoying than it looks at first
sight. For instance, after 16 ... 'iWf7?
White has 17 ltJe4!.
17 bxc3 'fi'a3! (D)
Here the best defence is a counterattack.
17 ... 'tWf7 is more solid but also
a little passive. White continues 18
18 'iWxg6+
This is not the only option; White
can instead take the e6-pawn. This has
the advantage that White might be
able to rake in the c6-pawn too. Shirov
only mentions "18 'fi'xe6+? ~d8 +",
but Ftacnik takes this a little further,
viz. 19 l:tdl 'iWxc3+ and now:

MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS 93
a) 20 :d2?! ii'b4 21 'ji'xc6? c3 22
:d3 c2+ 23 ~e2 ii'b2 24 :xf8+ ltJxf8
25 'ili'f6+ ~e8 26 ii'c6+ it.d7 (Black
also seems to win by 26 ... ~f7; for example,
27 :f3+ it.f5 28 :xf5+ gxf5
29 'ili'f6+ ~e8! 30 ii'c6+ ltJd7!) 27
'ili'xa8+ c2 c5 gives Black lots
of counterplay.
19 .. JWxc3+ 20 ~e21i'b2+! 21 :d2
1i'b4 22 'iixe6 (D)
B
22 ..• c3
White is living right on the edge,
but he would not be badly off if he
could manage to blockade the c-pawn.
However, accuracy is needed.
23 a3!
This is a good move but perhaps 23
l:td3!? (23 .l:tc2? ii'xd4 24 it.g2 it.b7
is good for Black) is possible. After
23 ... c2 Ftacnik gives the weak 24
'ii'h6?

94 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
pawns become an important dynamic
factor. However, Black's problem
seems to be that, though it is quite easy
to place his minor pieces optimally,
they are not exactly doing much. Meanwhile
White has the very simple plan
of pushing forward the f- and g-pawns,
eventually, if successful, causing claustrophobia
of Black's king or minor
pieces. All in all though, the position
should be approximately equal.
16 ..:iif7 17 'ii'xf7+ rJitxf7 (D)
w
18.i.g2
Others:
a) 18 0-0-0 liJxc3 19 bxc3 i.a3+
20 'ifi>c2liJf8 21 i.g2 .i.d7 22 f4l:tb8!
23 g4 b4 24 cxb4 a5! with strong counterplay,
Arbakov-Savchenko, USSR
1989.
b) 18 liJe4 .i.b4+ 19 'ifi>e2 c3! 20
bxc3 liJxc3+ 21liJxc3 i.xc3 22l:tdl
b4 23 .i.g2 i.a6+ 24 'iti>e3 l:tg8 2S
i.xc6liJb6 with at least an equal position
for Black, Lobron-Shirov, Bundesliga
1993/4.
18 ... liJxc3
Black cuts out White's option of
keeping the knights on the board after
all with liJe4. Black should also in general
be happy with piece exchanges,
although White's rooks usually become
more influential the fewer minor
pieces there are on the board. The
problem for Black is that even though
there is plenty of space available, it is
basically limited to the centre and the
queenside. Hence the exchange is logical
but there is also a disadvantage,
namely that the a8-hl diagonal is now
open for White's bishop.
After other moves White can often
beneficially avoid the exchange of
knights:
a) 18 ... b4?! 19 liJe4liJ7b6 200-0-0
i.d7 21 l:th8 i.e7 22 l:th7+ 'iti>e8 23
liJcs ± Knaak-Enders, East German
Ch 1985.
b) 18 ... liJ7b6 19 liJe4!? .i.d7 20
'iti>e2 i.g7? (I do not like Black's setup
at all, and ceding control of the
central squares cS and d6 like this is
definitely a mistake; Black should
probably try the immediate 20 ... liJa4)
21 liJd6+ 'iti>g8 22 l:thS! liJa4 23 J:r.gS
liJxb2 24 .i.xdS! cxdS 2Sl:thl (White's
attack is surprisingly dangerous and it
is not easy to take measures against
the threat of l:th6-g6) 2S ... aS 26l:th6
l:ta7 27 l:thg6 .i.c6 28 :'xe6 c3 29liJfS
+- Yusupov-Chekhov, USSR Ch (Vilnius)
1980.
c) 18 ... i.b4 19 'iti>d2 liJf8 20 f4
.ltd7 21 l:taft l:td8 22 i.xdS cxdS 23
g4 i.aS 24 fS 'iti>g7! 2S :'hS b4 26
l:tgS+ ..t>h6 27 l:thS+ ..t>g7 28 l:tgS+

MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS 95
cJii>h6 lh-1f2 Piesina-Khenkin, Pardubice
1993.
d) 18 ... .tg7 19 tLle4 tLlf8 20 cJii>d2 w
.td7 21 f4 as 22 lIafl a4 23 a3 lIb8 24
tLld6+ 'iti>g8 25 .te4 ;!; Szabo-P.Horvath,
Hungarian Cht 1994.
19 bxc3 lIb8 20 f4
Shirov considers this to be inferior
to the main line, and, indeed, the pawn
does not seem to be very important.
Now Black is able to exchange White's
bishop, while if White leaves the pawn
Black will have to spend a few moves
accomplishing this task. Shirov-Stisis,
London Lloyds Bank 1991 continued
20 .txc6?! .tb7 21 l:rh7+ (21 .txb7
lIxb7 might be objectively better, but
Black should be doing well when the
knight arrives on d5) 2l...'iti>g6 22 l:rxd7
.txc6 23 l:rxa7 .tf3! (this very strong
move not only prevents White from
setting his kingside pawns in motion
but also contains the devilish plan of
... .th6, ... .tg5, ... lIh8 and mate) 24
cJii>d2?! (according to Shirov 24 lIa6!
cJii>f5 25 'iti>d2 is more precise) 24 ... .th6+
25 'iti>c2 l:rf8 26 'iti>b2, and now after the
accurate 26 ... .td2! 27 'iti>c2 .tg5, with
the idea of ... .:h8, Black would have
been clearly better - Shirov.
20 ... b4 (D)
21 cJii>d2 cSt?
21...a5 22 .txc6 tLlb6 23 g4 .tb7
(23 ... bxc3+ 24 'iti>xc3 .tb4+ is premature
in view of 25 cJii>c2 tLld5 26 .txd5
exd5 27 f5, when Black's counterplay
has diminished) 24 .txb7 ':xb7 25
lIh7+.tg7 26 f5 tLld5! (26 ... 'iti>g8 is too
passive; after 27 ':ahl ':d7 28 cJii>c2
White is close to winning) 27 f6
bxc3+ 28 cJii>cl tLlxf6 29 exf6 'iti>xf6 30
cJii>c2 cJii>g6 31 ':xg7+! and 31.. . .:xg7?
32 ~xc3 gave White a slight pull in
Bareev-San Segundo, Madrid 1994,
but according to Bareev White would
not be able to make progress after
3l...cJii>xg7! 32 'iti>xc3 lIb4 33 lIfl 'iti>g6.
22 dS tLlb6 23 dxe6+
Sadler considers 23 d6 more critical,
when Black should play 23 ... tLld5
or 23 ... tLla4, stepping up the pressure
against c3.
23 ... .txe6 24 .te4 lId8+ 25 'it;>e3
tLldS+ 26 .txdS ':xdS 27 lIhdl ':xdl
28 ':xdl .tfS
Black is not worse, Mecking-San
Segundo, Linares 1995.
A223)
16 .tg2 'it'f7!
I have absolutely no faith in other
options for Black here. At the least
White can have a good version of Line
A222, while the different circumstances
might give White even better
options; e.g., 16 ... .tg7? 17 'ii'xg6+

96 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
'fif7 and now 18 'fixf7+ gives White a
superior version of Line A222, but 18
'iWg4! is even more effective, and after
18 ... ltJf8 19 ltJe4 'iWe7 20 :th5!, intending
:tg5, White had a clear advantage
in Dautov-Gabriel, Altensteig
1994.
17 i.e4 ltJe7 (D)
w
18 ltJxbS
I am surprised that this move has
not been investigated more than it has.
It is clearly the most consistent move
as White wins material, but while the
material balance is unusual, three
pieces against two rooks and a pawn is
not that bad for Black if he can make
his pieces cooperate nicely. Maybe
that is why White has been keener to
find a direct way to knock over Black's
position:
a) 18 0-0-0 (this seems to be too
slow) 18 ... i.a6! 19 ltJe2 i.g7 20 ltJf4
ltJf8. This is basically the set-up Black
should be aiming for; the f8-knight
and bishop on g7 cover possible entrances
for White's rook down the
h-file while the knight also guards the
pawns on e6 and g6. Furthermore, the
solid pawn-structure limits the options
for possible pawn-breaks by White,
meaning that Black has a reasonably
quiet time to manoeuvre his pieces
into even better positions. Beliavsky­
Kramnik, Linares 1993 continued 21
ltJh3 0-0-022 ltJg5 'iWe8! (the queen
would be almost stalemated on g8) 23
'iWf3 (23 ltJxe6? 'iWd7) 23 ... ltJf5 24
'iWa3! i.b7 (24 ... ~b7? 25 i.g2!, intending
ltJe4, is annoying) 25 'fixa7
'iWe7 26 ltJf3 c5! 27 i.xb7+ 'iWxb7 28
'iWxb7+ ~xb7 29 dxc5 :tc8 30 b4 cxb3
31 axb3 :'xc5+ 32 'it>b2 ltJe7 with an
edge for Black.
b) 18 :th8!? and now:
bl) 18 .. .'~d8 19 i.c2?! (here White
could also consider 19 ltJxb5 with
similar play to the main line) 19 ... ~c7
20 0-0-0 i.g7 21 :th7 ltJf8 22 l'th2
i.b7 23 ltJe4 :'d8 24 ltJg5 'iWg8 25
~bl ltJf5 26 'iWf4 c5 27 dxc5 :'xdl +
28 i.xd 1 ltJd7 + Davies-McDonald,
Wrexham 1995.
b2) 18 ... i.a6?! 19 a4! b4 20 ltJb5
i.xb5 21 axb5 was already very difficult
for Black in Eingorn-Onishchuk,
Cuxhaven 1994.
b3) 18 ... 'fig7!? is mentioned by
Akopian. White's best might be 19
'iWh3 as 19 'iWxe6 'iWxh8 20 i.xc6 :'b8
21 ltJe4 fails on account of 21...~d8!
(Black might even survive 21. .. 'iWh 1 +
22 ~e2 'ti'xal 23 ltJd6+ 'it>d8 24 ltJf7+
~c7 25 'ti'd6+ ~b6) 22 ltJg5 (22 ltJd6
ltJxe5 -+) 22 ... ltJxc6! 23 'iWxc6 (23
ltJf7 + 'it>c7 24 ltJxh8 ltJdxe5 wins for

MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS 97
Black) 23 ... .tb4+ 24 ~f1 l:tb6! 25
'ili'xb6+ lbxb6 26lbt7+ ~e7 27lbxh8
.tf5 with a winning ending for Black.
b4) 18 ... lbb6!? and now:
b41) 19 ~e2 with a further branch:
b411) 19 ... b4 20 l:tabl ~d7?! (the
alternative 20 ... bxc3! 21l:tlh7 'ili'xh7
22l:txh7 cxb2 23 'ili'f3lbd7 is unclear)
21l:t8h7! 'ili'g8, Kalantarian-Yegiazarian,
Armenian Ch 1994, and now 22
d5! (D).
B
Akopian provides extensive analysis
in In/ormator, which I have pruned
down to the bare essentials. 22 ... bxc3
(22... cxd5 23 lbxd5 lbbxd5 24 .txd5
l:tb8 25 l:th8 'it't7 26 l:txf8 'ili'xf8 27
'it'xe6+ ~d8 28 'it'd6+ and White
wins) 23 d6! and then:
b4111) 23 ... cxb2 24 dxe7 .txe7 25
l:tdl+ ~c7 26l:txe7+ .td7 27.txc6!
~xc6 (27... bl'iif 28 l:txbl ~xc6 29
'iifd4 +-) 28 l:texd7 lbxd7 29 'iifxc4+
lbc5 30 l:td6+ and White mates in five
more moves.
b4112) 23 ... lbbd5 24 'it'g5! cxb2
25 .txdS cxd5 26 dxe7! .tg7 27 'ili'xg6
.ta6 28 l:txg7 c3+ 29 ~f3 'iife8 30
l:th8! and White wins.
b4113) 23 ... .tb7 24 'iWg5! l:te8 25
l:th8 'it't7 26l:tlh7 .tg7 27l:txe8 ~xe8
28 dxe7 +-.
b4114) 23 ... .ta6 24 dxe7! .txe7
25 l:he7+! ~xe7 26 .txc6 'iWg7 (the
only move to prevent 'iWg5-f6) 27
'ir'g5+ ~t7 28 .txa8 lbxa8 (28 ... cxb2
29 .te4 c3+ 30 ~f3 is still dangerous
for Black) 29 bxc3 ±.
b412) 19 ... .td7! 20 l:tabl (20 a4!?
b4 21 as might be a better idea)
20 ... 0-0-0 21 l:tlh7 .tg7 22 l:txd8+
~xd8 23 ~ellbbd5 24lbe2, Rogers­
Solomon, Australian Ch (Gold Coast)
1998, and now 24 .. :iVg8 (24 ... ~e8!?)
25 l:th3 c5 is good for Black according
to Rogers.
b42) 19 .tc2!? lbf5 (19 ... 'it'g7!?)
20 lbe4 ~d7 21 l:th7 .tg7 22 lbd6
lbxd6 was played in Rogozenko-Antunes,
Cairo 1997, and now 23 'iifxg6
'iixg6 24 .txg6lbe8 25 .txe8+ ~xe8
26 l:txg7 ~f8 gives White an advantage
- Rogozenko.
18 ... cxb5 19 .txa8 lbb6 20 .te4
i.d7 (D)
20 ... lbbd5 is another possibility but
it makes sense to attempt to exchange
bishops as White's bishop is clearly
superior to its opposite number.
21l:th8 .tc6 22 f3!
A clever move, passing the ball back
into Black's court. Now if Black wants
to exchange the bishops he cannot
have the d5-square since White recaptures
with the pawn.
22 ... ~d7!

98 THE BOTVlNNIK SEMI-SLAV
mentioned 16 'ii'c2 c3! 17 bxc3 'ii'c7!
18 ttJg3 cxd4 19 c4 ttJcS +) 16 ... 'ii'c7
17 ttJg3 cxd4 18 .ltxc4 'ii'c6 19 f3 d3
+.
22 ... ttJbdS?! is imprecise due to 23
~f2! ttJb4 24 a3! ttJd3+ 2S .ltxd3
cxd3 26 ltdl ± Shirov-Morovic, Las
Palmas 1994.
23~e2!
White's king would stand better on
f2, as in the Shirov game above. However,
with Black's move-order this
square is off-limits since 23 ~f2 allows
23 ....ltxe4, when White cannot
take with pawn, thus giving Black
what he wants.
23 ....ltg7 24 lth7 ttJbd5 25 ltahl
White is slightly better according to
Shirov.
B)
11 exf6 .ltb712 g3 (D)
12 .lte2 has been regarded as not a
very serious attempt for an advantage
ever since the famous game Denker­
Botvinnik, USA-USSR radio match
1945, which continued 12 ... 'ii'b6 13
0-0 0-0-0 14 a4 (14 .ltf3 is probably
better, when the position should be
compared closely with Line B2) 14 ... b4
IS ttJe4 cS 16 'ii'bl (Botvinnik also
Now we analyse three paths for
Black:
Bl: 12 .. JWc7 98
B2: 12 .. :ii'b6 99
B3: 12 ... c5 103
Bl}
12 .. :ii'c7
Most lines involve Black advancing
... cS and the same applies to 12 .. .'it'c7
but, while the queen is usually better
placed on b6 in this respect (defending
the bS-pawn), Black here aims to deliver
a disruptive check on eS after
... cS is met by dS.
13 .ltg2 c5 14 d5
While not exactly forced, this still
looks the best for White. Other options
are:
a) 14 .ltf4 eS (14 .. .'iWb6 is also possible;
then it is not quite clear what the
slight change of location of White's

MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS 99
dark-squared bishop means) ISltJdS!
.txdS 16 .txdS 0-0-0 17 dxeS ltJxeS
18 0-0 .td6 19 a4ltJd3 20 .txd6l1xd6
21 'tig4+ 'tid7 (2l...'iPb8 22 .tg2 is
risky for Black) 22 'it'xd7+ 'ifi'xd7 23
.txf7, Vilela-Vera, Havana 1984, and
now Sveshnikov's 23 .. J:tf8 is the most
exact, with an unclear position.
b) 14 O-O!? .txg2 (14 ... b4 IS .tf4!
eS 16 ltJdS .txdS 17 .txdS 0-0-0 18
dxeSltJxeS 19 .txeS 'tixeS 20 'ti g4+ ±
Ruban) IS 'iPxg2 'tib7+ 16 f3 0-0-017
dxcSltJxcs 18 'tie2ltJd3 19ltJe4 with
an edge for White, Ruban-Savchenko,
Tbilisi 1989.
14 ... 'it'eS+ 15 'tie2 (D)
B
IS •.. 0-0-0!
IS ... 'it'xgS is dubious in view of
Vera's 16 dxe6 .txg2 17 f4! (on the
other hand 17 exd7 ++ 'iPxd7 18 lid 1 +
'iPc7 19 f4 'it'xf6 20 'tixg2 lIe8+ 21
'iPfl 'it'c6 is not very clear), when
17 ... 'it'xg3+ (17 ... 'tixf618 exd7++ rJo>xd7
19 0-0-0+ +-) 18 hxg3 lhhl+ 19
rJo>d2ltJxf6 20 'tixg2! wins for White;
e.g., 20 ... lId8+ 21 rJo>c2l1xai 22 'tic6+
ltJd7 23ltJxbS intending 24ltJc7+ ~e7
2SltJdS+ 'iPe8 26 exd7+ winning .
16 dxe6
16 ltJxbS?! 'it'xgS 17 ltJxa7+ rJo>c7
18ltJbS+ 'ifi'b6 19 f4 'it'fS did not give
White anything concrete in Knaak­
Vera, Cienfuegos 1984.
16 ... 'ii'xe2+ 17 rJo>xe2 .txg2 IS e7!
Knaak's suggestion, which is stronger
than 18 exd7 + lIxd7 19 lIhd I! b4
20 lIxd7 'it>xd7 21 ltJdl .te4! with
counterplay for Black in Liogky-Savchenko,
USSR 1987.
lS ... .txe7 19 fxe7 lIdgS 20 .tf4
So far Knaak. Now the German GM
only looks at 20 ... .txhl 21ltJxbS t and
20 ... lIe8 21 ltJxbS 1:txe7+ 22 ~d2
.txhl 23 ltJd6+ ~d8 24 lIxhl, both
with a substantial advantage for White.
Black's next move prevents ltJxbS and
is obviously an improvement but does
not seem quite enough for equality ...
2O ... a6! 21l1hdl lIeS 22.td6llxh2
23 a4 b4 24ltJdS lIh6 25 ltJe3 lIe6 26
f3
Now the bishop is in serious trouble.
26 ... ltJeS 27 .txeS! lIxeS 2S J:[dS+!
lIxdS 29 exdS'ii'+ 'iti>xdS 30 'it>f2 .th3
31 g4 fS 32 J:[dl+ cj;c7
Se.lvanov-Svirin, St Petersburg
1999. Now I do not see why White
cannot simply play 33ltJxfS. 33 ... J:[xfS
34 gxfS .txfS is not sufficient to draw
in view of 3S J:[dS .td3 36l1xcS+ cj;d6
37 J:[c8, when White wins.
82)
12 .. :iVb6 13 .tg2 0-0-0

100 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
This is the most accurate. After
13 ... cS White can of course transpose
to the main line, Chapters 2-4, with 14
dS 0-0-0 IS 0-0 b4, but with 14 dxcS!
.i.xcS IS 0-0 is a good alternative:
lS ... 0-0-0 16 'ii'e2 gives White a favourable
version of Line B22, while
lS ... .i.xg2 16 ~xg2 'ii'c6+ 17 f3 0-0-0
18 'ii'e2.i.d4 19 lDe4 lDcs 20 lDxcs
'ii'xcs 21 h4 was much better for
White in I.Sokolov-Djukic, Yugoslavia
1991.
140-0 (D)
15 dxe5! ':'xd116 ':'axdl
Illescas preferred to recapture with
the other rook, viz. 16 ':'fxd1!:
a) 16 ... .i.cS 17lDe4 .i.d4 18lDd6+
~c7 19lDxf7 ':'f8 20 lDd6 .i.xeS 21
.i.e3 'ii'a6 22 lDe4 .i.c8 23 .i.cs ± Vilela-Frey,
Havana 1985.
b) 16 ... b4 17 lDe4 cS 18 a3! (18
lDd6+ ..txd6 19 ':'xd6 'ii'bS 20 .i.xb7 +
'ii'xb7 21 ':'ad1 'ii'bS 22 .i.e3

MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS 101
was clearly better for White in Shabalov-Zamora,
Philadelphia 1998.
18 i.f4 c3!?
Black attempts to create counterplay
by activating his bishop on the
a6-fl diagonal but the move has the
obvious drawback that it opens lines
for White against Black's own king.
However, the alternative 18 .. J~h5
is not much better: 19 ltd4 c5 (or
19 .. Jbe5?! 20 i.xe5 'it'xe5 21 ltfd1)
20 ltxc4 i.d5 (20 ... i.a6? 21 ltxc5+
i.xc5 22 ltc1 ± Ermolinsky-Machulsky,
USSR 1982) 21 .l:.c2 c4 22 liJd2
c3 23 bxc3 bxc3 24 ltfc1 i.b4 25 liJb1
i.xg2 26 ~xg2 'it'd5+ 27 f3 ±.
19 bxc3 i.a6!
19 ... bxc3 20 liJg5 i.a6 21 liJxf7
i.xfl 22 i.xfl is very good for White.
20 cxb4 i.xb4 21 a3! i.xa3 22
.l:.fel i.d3! 23 liJd6+ i.xd6 24 exd6
~d7 2SlteS
25 .l:.al!? 'it'b6 26 i.e3 c5 27 .l:.ec1
.l:.c8 28 l:.a3 i.b5 29 ltac3 ~xd6 30 h4
is given by Yermolinsky and Shabalov,
and looks more ambitious. I would
definitely prefer White. Black cannot
hold the c5-pawn and creating counterplay
with ... a5 requires some preparation.
Meanwhile White has walked
his h-pawn closer to promotion.
2S ... i.bS 26 .l:.c1 'it'a4 27 .l:.ecS
White has a bind and an edge, Yermolinsky-Kaidanov,
USA Ch 1993.
822)
14 ... cS
It is important to note that if Black
wishes to play the main line after 11
g3, he will reach this position, i.e. after
11 ... i.b7 12 i.g2 'iVb6 13 exf6 0-0-0
140-0 c5. The question is now whether
15 dxc5 represents a greater problem
than 15 d5, which transposes to Chapters
2-4.
15 dxcS liJxcs
15 ... i.xc5 16 'it'e2 .l:.dg8 17 i.xb7+
'ii'xb7 18 liJe4 'ii'd5 19 .l:.fd1 i.d4 20
ltxd4 'ii'xd4 21 ltd 1 'ii'e5 22 'ii'f3!
gave White a promising attack in the
game Yuferov-Timoshchenko, USSR
1981.
16 'iVe2 i..xg217 ~xg2 i.h6! (D)
w
18h4
18 i.xh6 .l:.xh6 19 a4 (19 'ii'f3!?)
19 ... b4 20liJe4 liJxe4 21 'ii'xe4 'ii'b7 22
'ii'xb7+ 'iitxb7 23 l:ac1 l:d4 24 .l:.fd1
ltxd1 25 .l:.xd1 'iitc6 leads to an unclear
ending according to Tal. This is
one of those endings where, despite
being a pawn up, White must take
great care owing to Black's queenside
pawns.
18 ... i..xgS 19 hxgS 'ili'c6+ 20 f3
.l:.hS!

102 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
A precise move; after, for example,
20 .. J~dg8, Black would be in trouble
in view of 21 l:.hl!.
21 a4 b4 22 ltJb5
This occurred in Timman-Tal, Hilversum
KRO (2) 1988. Now 22 .. :ii'dS!
23 l:.fdlltJd3 would give Black plenty
of counterplay. After 24 'iVe3 Tal supplies
the line 24 ... 'iVxgS! (threatening
.. :ilt'xg3+!; 24 ... a6 and 24 ... l:.dh8 are
both inferior) 2S 'iVe4 (2S 'it'xgS?!
l:.xgS 26ltJxa7+ cj;>b7 27 ltJbS l:.gdS!
+) 2S ... 'iVdS 26 l:.xd3 cxd3 and then:
a) 27 l:.cl+ cj;>b8 28 'iVxb4 d2 29
ltJc7+ cj;>c8! (29 .. :ii'b7 30 ltJa6+ =) 30
l:.c3 'iVxf3+!! -+.
b) 27 'ilt'xb4 d2 28ltJxa7+ (28 l:.a3
dlltJ!! -+) 28 ... cj;>c7 29ltJbS+ cj;>b8 30
ltJc3+ (30 'iVaS?! l:.d7; 30 ltJd6+?!
cj;>a8) 30 ... 'ilt'b7 31 'iVxb7+ cj;>xb7 with
an unclear position.
823)
14 ... .th6 (D)
w
This was once thought too slow but
is now becoming quite fashionable.
15 i.xh6
IS .te3 ltJxf6 16 'iVf3 should be
met by 16 ... i.xe3 17 fxe3 l:.h6, when
White's kingside has been weakened
and he cannot really use the semi-open
f-file; Moran-Juarez Flores, Granma Z
1987 continued 18 a4 a6 19 b3 cxb3
20 l:.fbl l:.xd4!? 21 axbS? (after 21
exd4 'ii'xd4+ 22 cj;>hlltJg4 23 h4 Black
may not have anything more than a
perpetual check) 21...l:.c4 22 bxa6
l:.xc3 23 axb7+ cj;>xb7 24 cj;>hl b2 +.
15 ... l:.xh6 16 ltJe4!
White has several other options but
this is the one that makes the best impression.
White centralizes his knight,
threatening ltJd6+ and 'preventing'
16 ... ltJxf6 in view of the positionally
desirable 17 ltJcS. Others:
a) 16 a4ltJxf6 17 as 'iVxd4 18 'ilt'f3
'ii'eS 19 a6 .ta8 20 l:.fdl l:.xdl+ 21
l:.xdl b4 (2l...ltJdS!? - Ernst) 22ltJe2
l:.h8 and Black is better, Wells-Lukacs,
Budapest 1994.
b) 16 'iVd2 l:.g6 17 a4ltJxf6 is unclear.
c) 16 'iVcl l:.dh8 (note that this is
possible, whereas against 16 'iVd2
White would have 17 ltJe4 cS 18 dxcS
ltJxcS 19 ltJd6+) 17 ltJe4 cS (Black
wisely refrains from 17 ... l:.xh2 18
ltJd6+ cj;>b8 19 ltJxb7! cj;>xb7 20 a4,
when, although the position is far from
clear, White has reasonable attacking
chances) 18 'iVf4 l:.xh2 19 ltJd6+
'ilt'xd6! 20 .txb7+

MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS 103
w
16 ... cS (D)
21 bxa7~b7 22.l:Hdl ±Beliavsky) 19
a4! ttJc5 20 'it'f4 :h5 21 axb5 ± Beliavsky-Palac,
Bled 1996.
18 ttJd6+ ~c719 'ir'xb7+ ~xd6 20
dxcS+ ttJxcS 21 :adl + ttJd3 22 'it'e4
rj;e7
Here I would prefer Black, if any
colour, Van Wely-Piket, Wijk aan Zee
blitz 1999.
83)
12 ... cS 13 dS (D)
17 'ii'f3!?
This had a storming debut, but nevertheless
I think White should again
turn his attention towards 17 'it'd2. In
fact it is uncertain why White in the
first place looked for an alternative
since 17 'ir'd2 l:thh8 (17 ... l:tdh8 18
dxc5 ttJxc5 19 ttJd6+ ±) 18 'ir'f4 i.xe4
19 i.xe4 cxd4 20 a4! e5 21 'ir'f3
'it'xf6?! 22 'ir'a3! was actually very
promising for White in Lechtynsky­
T.Rahman, Dubai OL 1986. However,
it is possible that Black can get away
with 21...b4!?, and, if this does not
work, 17 ... l:th5!? looks like a sensible
alternative.
17 ... l:txf6!
Others are inferior:
a) 17 ... ttJxf6? 18 dxc5 (probably
18 'ir'f4 also favours White) 18 ... i.xe4,
P.H.Nielsen-Ornstein, Gausdal1999,
and now the simplest is 19 'ii'xe4 'ir'a6
20 'ir'a8+ ~c7 21 'ir'f3.
b) 17 ... i.xe4 18 'ir'xe4 cxd4 (or
18 ... ttJxf6 19 dxc5 ttJxe4 20 cxb6 f5
B
He we discuss the relatively few deviations
that have not already been examined
in previous chapters en route
to the main line, including 17 dxe6 instead
of 17 a3.
13 ... 'ir'b6
For alternatives, see Chapter 5.
14 i.g2 0-0-0
14 ... b4 is an interesting alternative.
It might transpose to the main line but
independent approaches often lead to
very complex play; e.g., 15 0-0 (15
ttJa4 'it'd6!?) 15 ... bxc3 (15 ... 0-0-0 is
probably better) 16 bxc3 'ir'c7 (the

104 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLA V
continuation 16 ... 0-0-0 17 .l:.b 1 is covered
in Chapter 4, while 16 ... e5 leads
to the same kind of problems with
White dominating the hl-a8 diagonal
after 17 .l:.bl 'ifa6 18 .l:hb7! 'ifxb7 19
d6, although perhaps this is not that
clear; Babula-Lukacs, Zalakaros 1998
continued 19 ... 'ifc8 20 f4 e4! 21 .l:r.el
.l:r.b8 22 ~xe4 ~d8 23 'iWd5 with a totally
unclear position; White collects
lots of pawns for the rook while still
maintaining an attack) 17 dxe6 fxe6
18 'iWbl!? 0-0-0 (18 ... ~xg2 19 'ifg6+
~d8 20 ~xg2 'ifc6+ 21 f3 .l:r.b8 22
.l:r.f2 gives White an edge according to
Se.Ivanov) 19 ~xb7+ 'iWxb7 20 .l:r.el
~h6 21 'iWxb7+ ~xb7 22 f4 with compensation,
Sakaev-Se.Ivanov, Russia
1995.
15 0-0 b4 16 tiJa4
For 16 :rbI, see Chapter 4.
16 ... 'iWb5
The two alternatives, 16 ... 'ifa6 and
16 ... 'ifd6, were examined in Chapter 3.
17 dxe6
17 a3 is the Main Line (Chapter 2).
The text-move is also very interesting,
but there is not much new to report
here since Savchenko's spectacular
21.. . .l:.d4! turned the general perception
in Black's favour.
17 ... ~xg218 ~xg2
18 e7?! is a familiar interpolation
but it is not good here: 18 ... ~xfl 19
exd8'if+ 'iitxd8 20 'iitxfl 'ifc6! 21 'iitgl
~d6 22 f4 .l:r.e8 23 'iitf2 'iitc7 and Black
was very active in Ubilava-Timoshchenko,
USSR Ch 1981.
18 .. :i¥c6+ 19 f3 'iWxe6 20 'iWc2
Defending the second rank without
weakening the kingside; the game
Haba-Shabalov, Oberwart 1992 continued
20 h4 ~h6 21 'ifcl ~xg5 22
'ifxg5 .l:r.hg8 23 'iff4 'ifc6 24 b3 c3 and
Black was better due to his reasonable
attacking chances and the out-of-play
knight on a4 .
20 ... tiJe5 21.l:r.ael.l:.d4! (D)
21...'iWh3+ probably also holds up
well, but this is the most energetic.
The rook serves multiple purposes
from d4, including defending c4, intending
to bring the queen behind it,
and in some lines sacrificing itself in
order to demolish White's kingside
shelter.
22 h4 ~d6 23 .l:.e2 (D)
White logically attempts to double
rooks on the e-file. Other approaches
have failed:
a) 23 ~e3?! is natural, but one
point of Black's 21st move is revealed
after 23 ... :rdxh4! 24 gxh4 .l:r.xh4 25
~gl tiJd3! 26 'iWg2 ~h2+ 27 'ifxh2
.l:.xh2 28 ~xh2 tiJxel 29 .l:.xel 'ifxf6

MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS 105
with a clear advantage for Black, Rublevsky-Savchenko,
Helsinki 1992.
b) 23 .l:.e4?! 'Wd5 24 'We2 (24 .1e3
.l:.d3 25 .l:.el tiJxf3! is also a massacre
- Burgess) 24 ... tiJxf3! 25 .l:.e8+ .l:.xe8
26 'ii'xe8+ 9itc7 -+ Bareev-Oll, Moscow
1992.
c) 23 a3 'Wd5 24 'fif5+rj;c7 25 .l:.e2
rj;c6! and if either side has a slight
edge, it is Black, P.Nikolic-Shirov,
Wijk aan Zee 1993.
investigate 25 ... .l:.e8!?, although I do
not think that Black should despair.
26 .l:.e7 + .1xe7 27 .l:.xe7 + rj;c6 28
'ifxd5+ .l:.xd5 29 .l:.xf7 (D)
B
B
23 .. :ifd5 24 'fif5+ rj;c7 25 .l:.fel!?
tiJd3
This leads to an unbalanced, unclear
position. If Black does not want to
go into this kind of position, he could
The position is unclear according to
Shirov. White has plenty of counterplay
with his dangerous f-pawn but
neither should Black's c-pawns be ignored.
White probably has to allow a
repetition after 29 ... tiJel+ 30 9itf2
tiJd3+ since 31 rj;f1 lets Black's rook
penetrate after 31.. . .l:.e5, and entering
the e-file is risky. Alternatively, it is
very unclear what happens if Black
continues 29 ... tiJxb2!? 30 tiJxb2 c3 31
tiJc4 ~b5 32 tiJe3 l:t.d2+ 33 9ith3 .l:.xa2.

8 10 ... ~e7
1 d4 dS 2 c4 c6 3 tLlf3 tLlf6 4 tLlc3 e6 S
i.gS dxc4 6 e4 bS 7 eS h6 8 i.h4 gS 9
tLlxgS hxgSl0 i.xgS i.e7 (D)
sideline. First, from the diagram above
White continues 11 exf6 i.xf6 and
then there is the choice between 12
i.xf6 and 12 i.e3. There are pros and
cons for both moves but some theoretical
works regard 12 i.e3 as the strongest.
After 12 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 (D) we have
the following position:
w
10 ... i.e7 has always had a rather
dubious reputation, except for a short
period in the mid-1980s after Smyslov
used it to draw against Kasparov in
their 1984 Candidates match.
This is the only line where Black
does not play the Botvinnik in gambit
style, but his queenside structure is
shaky and mainly due to this and the
dark-squared weaknesses White has
good chances, albeit probably somewhat
overestimated, of coming out of
the opening with an advantage.
Strategy for White and Black
Let us first briefly discuss the ideas for
both sides in this nowadays quite rare
The general rule when one side has a
weak colour complex (as here, where
Black is very weak on the dark squares)
is that the other side should pursue an
exchange of the bishops of the same
colour to emphasize this weakness.
Keeping that in mind, exchanging
bishops on f6 is apparently the most
logical, but other factors are also important.
By parting with the darksquared
bishop White is also giving up

lO ... j.e7 107
his own best defender of the weak
d4-pawn, and often Black attempts to
exploit this by the rook-lift .. J:th4, attacking
the pawn. To be even more
optimistic it would be nice if Black got
a chance to throw the knight forward
with ... lDa6-b4.
To counter this, White can prevent
the rook from coming forward by
playing 13 g3, which simultaneously
prepares a kings ide fianchetto. The
other, more direct, continuation is 13
a4, which allows Black to win the d4-
pawn by 13 .. .l:th4, but in the meantime
Black's queenside pawns are
destroyed. The tactics occurring after
this are of great importance to the
10 ... ~e7 system. If Black cannot hold
this, the whole system can be finally
buried.
It is usually White's king that is the
safer but dangers are luring all the
time. One of my favourite tricks occurred
in the following position:
White now decided to move his king
away from the threatened ... lDd3+ and
into safety with 20 O·O?? - at least that
is what he thought. After 20 ... 'ii'h6!
White resigned. He must have realized
that 21 h4 is simply answered by
21...Wxh4!, and there is no clever way
to escape. In the diagram White should
play 20 lha7+ ~b6 21 Wa4 but Black
has a perpetual after 21...lDd3+ 22
~d2 Wxf2+ 23 ~c3 Wxb2+ 24 ~xc4
l:tc8+ 25 ~xd3 e4+ 26 'iite3 .l:f.c3+ 27
lDxc3 'it'xc3+ 28 ~xe4 f5+ 29 ~f4
'it'd2+ and there is no way out of the
checks. Ehlvest-Ivanchuk, USSR 1986
was agreed drawn in this position.
White's other main continuation,
12 ~e3 (D), is less well investigated.
B
Eingorn - Ivanovic
Bor1986
It feels slightly strange that White's
best move might be to retreat the
bishop, but it is much more difficult
for Black to create counterplay when
the d4-pawn is no real target. Ideally,
White would like to play a4 attacking
the queenside, which is the standard

108 THE B01VINNIK SEMI-SlAV
idea in such positions. Combined with
a kingside fianchetto this would be
highly unpleasant since Black is behind
in development. But since Black
moves first, he can of course prevent
the fianchetto with 12 ... .i.b7, as he is
then ready to play ... c5 should White
open the diagonal (with g3). Castling
kingside seems to be running into an
attack, so if White is not keen on leaving
his king in the centre he should
probably refrain from playing a4 and
instead attempt to castle queenside.
Black's strategy is not that easy to
point out since there is no obvious
plan. If White promised to leave Black
in peace, then the moves would be
something like ... .i.b7, ... tDa6, ... 'ike7
and ... 0-0-0. Unfortunately, White is
unlikely to be so cooperative, and he
can quickly generate pressure with
'ikf3 and tDe4. Hence, the best shot for
Black seems to be quick action such as
an ... eS break or insisting on the exchange
of the dark-squared bishops by
playing ... .i.gS. However, these ideas
really need a few outings and it is not
quite clear when exactly is the best
time to implement them.
Quick Summary
After 1O ... .i.e7 11 exf6 .i.xf6 White
has an important strategic decision to
make: whether to exchange the darksquared
bishops with 12 .i.xf6 (Line
A) or to retreat the bishop with 12 .i.e3
(Line B).
Line B is generally considered the
main line but in my opinion Black's
chances have been somewhat underestimated
in the whole 1O ....i.e7 system.
In the main line after 12 .i.e3, Black
has done best with 12 ....i.b7 13 'ikf3!?
.i.e7, but it is probably worth taking a
closer look at the untested 12 ... eS!?
In Line A, after 12 .i.xf6 'ifxf6,
White's most direct line is 13 a4!?
(Line AI), but in view of 17 .. .'~f8!,
which is neglected by some sources,
White should probably choose the
calmer 13 g3 (Line A2). But also here
I think White's chances are largely
overestimated. In particular I think the
position after 17 .. .'~b8 is worth a
closer look.
The Theory of lO ... .te7
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tDf3 tDf6 4 tDc3 e6 5
.i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .i.h4 g5 9
tDxg5 hxg5 10 .i.xg5 .i.e7 11 exf6
.i.xf6 (D)
Now:
A: 12 .i.xf6 109
B: 12.i.e3 113

JO ... .i.e7 109
A)
12 .txf6 'iVxf6
Now:
AI: 13 a4 109
A2: 13 g3 110
Other moves:
a) 13 .te2:h4 14 .tg4 just seems
wrong somehow, but it is not that easy
to find a good move for Black, while
14 .tD? I:txd4 15 'iVe2 is certainly unsound,
Bruin-Calinescu, Groningen jr
Ech 1986.
b) 13 'iVd2 (preparing to reinforce
the d-pawn and intending to take control
of the dark squares) 13 ... ttJa6 14
a4 (14 ttJe4 "ike7 15 g3 makes more
sense but is surely not an improved
version of Line A2) 14 ...:h4 15 axb5
:xd4 16 "ike3 ttJb4 =+= Wells-Flear,
British Ch (Edinburgh) 1985.
AI)
13a4
This has been widely regarded as
the most critical approach. In view of
his queenside majority and White's
weak d-pawn, Black will usually have
the better long-term chances since it is
more difficult for White to push the
h-pawn. Hence it makes sense to complicate
things straight away, also since
White is slightly better developed.
13 ... l:th4 (D)
13 ... b4 is inferior. There has to be a
very good reason for playing ... b4
since the c4-pawn will be almost impossible
to defend afterwards. 14 ttJe4
'iif4 15 'iVg4! (15 'iif3 'iixD 16 gxf3
We7 17 .txc4 a5 18 h4 ttJd7 gives
Black some sort of compensation)
15 ... 'iVxg4 16 ttJf6+ We7 17 ttJxg4
:d8 18 :dl .ta6 (18 ... c3 19 bxc3
bxc3 20 ttJe3 gives White a clear advantage)
19 ttJe5 c5 20 dxc5 :d5 21
ttJxc4 :xc5 22 ttJe3 .txfl 23 Wxfl
ttJd7 24 We2 and Black does not have
sufficient compensation for the pawn,
Schroeder-V.Ivanov, COIT. 1989.
14 axb5
In the rnid-1980s, when this line was
popular, attention switched briefly to
14 g4!?, but even though it was initially
rated very highly (starting with
Dreev's '!!' in Informator) it was soon
found out that White has to look elsewhere
for an advantage. Black has
several interesting ideas:
a) 14 ... 'iif4!?
b) 14 ... b4 15 ttJe4 "ikf4 16 .tg2 and
now 16 ... ttJd7 17 h3 .ta6 18 'iicl
'iVxc 1 + 19 :xc 1 was very good for
White in Novikov-Dreev, Tallinn 1986,
but there may be a case for looking at
the provocative 16 .. .f5 !?

110 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
c) 14 ... 'it'g7! ISh3eSl6.Jtg2exd4
17ltJxbS cxbS 18 .Jtxa8 b4 and Black
has good compensation, Dzhandzhgava-Ivanchuk,
Lvov 1987; the rest of
the game was entertaining: 19 'it'e2+
.Jte6 20 .JtdS d3 21 'it'e4 d2+ 22 'iti>e2
'it'xb2 23 lIadl c3 24 .Jtxe6 fxe6 2S
'it'xe6+ 'iti>d8 26 'it'f6+ 'iti>c8 27 'it'xh4
c2 28 lIxd2 'iVeS+ 29 'iti>f3 'iVc3+ 30
~e2 'it'eS+ lh-1f2.
14 ... lIxd4 15 'it'f3!?
This is the improvement that revived
14 axbS but it is far from clear
whether it promises anything at all.
IS 'it'hS .Jtb7 16 .Jte2ltJd7 17 'iVf3
'it'xf3 18 .Jtxf3 ltJeS 19 .Jte4 lId7 20
bxc6 .Jtxc6 21 0-0 .Jtxe4 22 ltJxe4
'iti>e7 was fine for Black in Sturua­
Dreev, Lvov 1985.
15 ... 'it'xf3
It is not worth avoiding the queen
exchange.
16 gxf3 .Jtb717 J:.gl (D)
B
17 .•. 'iti>f8!
White enjoys a slight initiative but
it is fairly clear that if Black gets time
to complete his development and coordinate
his pieces, he will not be
worse. White's passed h-pawn is only
a candidate to become strong. Here,
where it is still on its initial square, it is
no real worry. Hence, Black's problems
increase if White is allowed to
maintain his initiative, as he is after
17 ... ltJd7 18 lIg8+ ltJf8 19 bxc6 .Jtxc6
20 lIg4 lIad8 21 .Jte2, when White is
better according to Magerramov.
18lIg4
18 lIa4 ltJd7 19 lIxc4 ':'xc4 20
.Jtxc4 ltJeS 21 .Jte2 cxbS 22 f4 ltJf3+
23 .Jtxf3 .Jtxf3 is fine for Black.
18 ... c5 19 ltJe4 a6!
19 ... ltJd7?! 20 ltJxcS! ltJxcS 21
J:.xd4 ltJb3 22 l:.d7 ltJxal 23 lIxb7
gives White a clear advantage.
20 b6 .Jtxe4! 21 fxe4ltJd7 22l:.h4
'iti>e7 23 f3 ltJxb6
Black is slightly better, Yuferov­
Kula, Katowice 1992.
A2}
13g3
This is a good positional move,
which serves both to prepare the fianchetto
and to prevent ... l:th4 but it
lacks the directness of 13 a4.
13 ... .Jtb7 14 .Jtg2ltJa6 (D)
15ltJe4
This is probably the most promising
continuation; White's strong centralized
knight on e4 will fix its
counterpart to the not very agreeable
post on a6 (since otherwise the white
knight would just jump into the cSsquare).
Others:

JO ... iJ.e7 111
a) 150-00-0-016 a4 l:.xd4 17 'iie2
b4 18 lbe4 'it'e5 19 l:.adl l:.hd8 20
l:.xd4 'iWxd4 21 lbg5 l:.d7 + Tunik­
Dreev, USSR 1985.
b) 15 a4 and now:
bl) 15 ... b4 16 lbe4 'it'e7 17 'it'e2
O-O-O!? (17 ... f5 18 lbc5 lbxc5 19 dxc5
'iWxc5 20 'iWxe6+ 'fie7 21 'fixe7+ rt;xe7
22 0-0 ± Ross-Schiller, Pan American
1986) 18 'ir'xc4 e5 19 dxe5 'iWxe5 20
0-0 l:ld4 21 'it'c2 c5 22 l:.fel 'it>b8 23
h4 'ir'd5 24 i.f3 'fif5 25 l:.e3 l:lhd8 is
unclear, Ribli-Fahnenschmidt, Bundesliga
1985/6.
b2) 15 ... 0-0-0 16 axb5 cxb5 (Polugaevsky
also considered 16 ... l:.xd4,
when 17 'iWf3 'it'xf3 18 i.xf3 cxb5 19
i.xb7+ ~xb7 20 lbxb5 %:te4+ 21 'it>f1
%:td8 is equal, but White might try 17
bxa6!? l:.xdl+ 18lbxdl i.a8 190-0
followed by lbe3; this is of course
risky but perhaps promising as it is not
so easy for Black to wake up the sleeping
bishop on a8) 17 i.xb7+ ~xb7 18
lbxb5 with a further divide:
b21) 18 ... 'fif5?! 19 'fia4! 'fie4+ 20
rt;d2 'ir'c6 21 b3 leads to a distinct
advantage for White, Polugaevsky­
Flear, London 1986.
b22) 18 ... lbb4 190-0 lbc6 20 'fie2
± Babula-Vavra, Czech Extraleague
1998/9.
b23) 18 ... e5 19 d5 and then:
b231) 19 ... lbc5 has the point that
a4 is not accessible to White's queen
but then another route to near Black's
king is available: 20 l:.xa7+ ~b6 21
'ir'd2! lbd3+ 22 ~f1 (22 ~dl? 'it'f3+
23 ~c2 'it'xf2 was rather embarrassing
for White in Kirilov-Nei, Tallinn tt
1986; White inevitably loses a piece
and there is no perpetual afterwards,
so White took the fastest course to end
the game and resigned) 22 ... 'it'xf2+ 23
'iWxf2+ lbxf2 24 ~xf2 'it>xb5 25 %:txf7
and White is better even though it is
not clear that it is enough to win the
game.
b232) 19 ... lbb4 20 l:.xa7+ (20 O-O??
'fih6! and White resigned in view of
21 h4 'fi xh4! in Eingorn-I vanovic, Bor
1986) 20 ... 'it>b6 21 'fia4lbd3+ 22 'it>d2
'fixf2+ 23 ~c3 'fixb2+ 24 ~xc4 l:lc8+
25 'it>xd3 e4+ 26 ~e3 l:.c3+ 27 lbxc3
'fixc3+ 28 'it>xe4 f5+ 29 'it>f4 'it'd2+
Ih-1f2 Ehlvest-Ivanchuk, Minsk 1986. I
can imagine there is a perpetual.
c) 15lbxb5 with a further branch:
cl) 15 ... cxb5!? (playing 15 lbxb5
one does not really expect this to work
but it is not so clear) 16 i.xb7 lbb4 17
0-0 (17 i.xa8lbd3+ 18 ~d2 'it'xd4 is
probably just a draw) 17 ... %:td818 'it'd2
lbd3 19 i.c6+ ~e7 20 i.xb5 %:tdg8,
intending ... 'fih4, is actually very dangerous
for White and led to quick win

112 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
for Black in Danilov-Ignatescu, Romanian
Ch 1992.
c2) 15 ... 0-0-0 and then:
c21) 16li:Jxa7+?! cj;b8 17li:Jxc6+
i.xc6 18 i.xc6li:Jb4 19 i.f3li:Jc2+ 20
'ti'xc2 'ti'xf3 21 :gl :xd4 + Grivas­
Toshkov, Iraklion 1985.
c22) 16li:Ja3 l:xd4 17 'ti'e2li:Jb4 18
0-0 i.a6 19 'ti'f3 'ti'xf3 20 i.xf3 :d2
and Black has excellent counterplay to
compensate for his numerous pawn
weaknesses, Uhlmann-Gauglitz, Dresden
1985.
c23) 16 'ii'a4 cxb5 17 i.xb7+ 'iitxb7
18 'ii'xb5+ 'iita8 19 'ii'c6+ cj;b8 20
'ti'b5+ ~a8 21 'ii'c6+ 'iitb8 22 'ii'b5+
112_112 Novikov-Khuzman, Kuibyshev
1986.
15 ... 'iIi'e7 160-00-0-017 a4
In order to free this knight for other
activities, Black has to expel the e4-
knight with ... f5 one way or another.
17 ..• ~b8!?
Kasparov labels this with a question
mark in lnformator 37 and although
Smyslov did not have the
courage to repeat the line, I think the
criticism is too harsh.
Black has also tried the immediate
17 ... f5: 18 li:Jc3 (18 axb5 cxb5 19
':'xa6 i.xa6 20 li:Jc5 'ii'xc5! 21 dxc5
':'xd1 22 :xd1 and now 22 ... b4! is unclear
according to Kasparov, but not
22 ... .:.d8? 23 ':'a1 i.b7 24 c6 i.a8 25
c7! winning, Altyzer-Lautner, Zurich
1987) 18 ... b4 (18 ... e5 19 axb5 cxb5 20
li:Jxb5 i.xg2 21 :xa6! gave White a
strong attack in Vidoniak-Nedobora,
Lvov 1992) 19li:Je2 c5 20 'ii'c2 i.xg2
21 cj;xg2 'ili'b7+ 22 f3 ;j; Ruban-S.lvanov,
USSR 1985.
18 'ili'd2 (D)
B
Now:
a) 18 ... li:Jb4 19 :fd1! e5 20 li:Jc5
li:Jd3 (20 ... a5!? - Paunovic) 21 axb5!
li:Jxc5 22 'ti'aS ':'xd4 23 bxc6 ± Paunovic-Flear,
Geneva 1986.
b) 18 ... b4 19 l:ac1 f5 20 li:Jg5 e5
21 :xc4 c5 22 i.xb7 'ti'xb7 23 'ii'e3!
exd4 24 'ti'e5+ cj;a8, Kasparov-Smysloy,
Vilnius Ct (5) 1984, and now the
simple 25 'ii'xf5 gives White a large
advantage according to Kasparov.
c) 18 ... f5?! 19 li:Jg5 e5 20 ':'fe1
'ti'f6 21 axb5 cxb5 22 i.xb7 ~xb7 23
'ii'aS ± Kasparov.
d) We have seen the ... e5 idea,
which obviously must be part of
Black's idea with ... 'it?b8, carried out
in a few of the above lines, but why
has it always been prefaced by ... f5?
The immediate 18 ... e5! looks much
stronger. 19 'ti'g5 (19 'ili'aS is perhaps
the reason why Smyslov decided to
close the queens ide with 18 ... b4 but

lO ... J..e7 113
19 .. Jhd4 20 axb5 cxb5 does not look
that clear) 19 ... 'ii'xg5 (19 ... f6!? is also
possible, and probably a safer choice)
20 llJxg5 exd4 (20 .. .lhd4 21 llJxf7
ne8 22 nfel gives White a clear advantage)
21 axb5 cxb5 22llJxf7 .i.xg2
23 ~xg2 llJc5 is unclear. The black
pawns are extremely dangerous and
for the moment a lot closer to their
goal than White's kingside phalanx.
The reader is invited to analyse this
even further.
B)
12 .i.e3 (D)
12 ... .i.h7
Other options are:
a) The exchange sacrifice 12 ... nh4
13 g3 nxd4 14 .i.xd4 'ii'xd4 would
perhaps be just about OK if White
were forced to exchange queens, but
15 'ii'e2! is strong, and after 15 ... llJd7
16 ndl, Black evidently does not have
enough.
b) 12 ... .i.g5?! 13 g3 .i.b7 14 .i.g2
.i.xe3 15 fxe3 'ii'c7 16 'ii'f3 a6 17 0-0
nf8 18 a4 ± T.Georgadze-Landero,
Seville 1985.
c) 12 ... llJa6 13 a4 (13 g3 llJb4!)
13 ... llJc7 and then:
c1) 14 .i.e2llJd5 15 axb5llJxe3 16
fxe3 .lth4+ 17 ~f1 'ii' g5 with compensation
- Levitt.
c2) 14 g3 c5! (14 ... llJd5 15 .ltg2 b4
16llJe4.i.e7 170-0 f5 18 llJc5 .ltxc5
19 dxc5 e5 20 nel ± Kolev-Haugli,
Moscow OL 1994) 15 dxc5 (15 .i.g2
cxd4 16llJxb5 dxe3! 17llJxc7+ 'ii'xc7
18 .i.xa8 .ltxb2 gives Black excellent
play according to Levitt) 15 ... .ltb7 16
ngl b4 17llJb5! with an unclear position,
Levitt-Landero, Seville 1989.
c3) 14 'ii'f3 .i.d7 15 axb5 cxb5 16
.i.f4 nc8 17llJe4llJd5 18llJd6+ ~e7
19 llJxc8+ 'ii'xc8 20 .i.e2 and Black
does not have sufficient compensation,
Sch6n-Polajzer, Biel 1990.
d) 12 ... e5!? was for a while my
best attempt to resurrect this line for
Black. If Black could exchange the e­
pawn for White's d-pawn he would
have a strong queens ide majority, and
the outcome would basically be very
unclear. Another factor is that Black's
bishops are stronger than their white
counterparts and exert pressure against
White's queenside. Therefore White
must play 13 d5 .i.b7 (13 ... cxd5 14
'ii'xd5 'ii'xd5 15llJxd5 .i.d8 16 a4.i.b7
17llJc3 ±) 14 d6 and now we have:
dl) 14 ... 'ii'a5 15 a4 'ii'b4 16 'ii'f3!
'ii'xb2 17 nclllJd7 18 axb5 +-.
d2) 14 ... llJd7 15 a4 b4 16llJe4 c5
17 llJxc5 llJxc5 18 .ltxc5 and White
should win.

114 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
d3) 14 ... .llg5!? is probably best. It
looks terribly risky but I do not see
anything completely clear: 15 .llxg5
(15 d7+ is enticing but 15 ... liJxd7 16
.llxg5 'iVxg5 17 liJe4 'iVd8 18 liJd6+

1O ... i.e7 115
13 ... .te7 (D)
13 ... .txd4 140-0-0 .txe3+ (14 ... e5?
15 tZJxb5 .txe3+ 16 fxe3 'fIIe7 17
tZJd6+ +-) 15 fxe3 'ilie7 16 tZJe4 ~f8
17 tZJc5! 'fIIxc5 (17 ... .tc8 18 .te2 does
not really solve any of Black's problems)
18 l:td8+ ~e7 19 l:txh8 was very
good for White in Demirel-Fridman,
Sas van Gent jr Ech 1992, but only
since White can escape the checks after
19 ... c3 20 l:th7 cxb2+ 21 ~xb2
'fIIb4+ 22 ~c2 'fIIa4+ 23 ~cl 'fIIa3+ 24
~dl 'ilia4+ 25 ~el 'ilib4+ 26 ~f2
'fIIb2+ 27 .te2, etc. The game continuation
did not bring any consolation either:
19 ... tZJd7 20 l:txa8 .txa8 21 .te2
tZJe5 (2L.c3 22 'ilif4 cxb2+ 23 ~xb2
± Atalik and Demirel) 22 'ilie4 tZJd3+
23 ~bl f5 24 'fIIh4+ cJi>d7 25 'fIIh7+
'fIIe7 26 'fIIh8 and White was winning.
14g3
The critical continuation has to be
14 tZJxb5!? 'ilib6 (14 ... cxb5 15 'ilixb7
'ilid5 16 'fIIxd5 exd5 17 .te2 tZJc6 18
0-0-0 is better for White) 15 tZJc3
'fIIxb2 16 l:cl. White is ready to meet
16 ... c5 with 17 d5, so Black might try
16 ... tZJd7 with the idea 17 .txc4 c5 18
d5 tZJe5 19 .tb5+ 'ii'xb5 20 tZJxb5
tZJxf3+ 21 gxf3 l:td8 22 .txc5 .txc5 23
w
l:txc5 .ixd5 24 tZJc7+ ~e7 25 tZJxd5+
1'hd5 and the rook ending is a draw. I
admit this is not entirely forced and it
is possible that White can improve
somewhere along the way but it seems
to flow rather nicely, though.
14 ... tZJa6
14 ... tZJd7!? 15 .tg2 b4 also comes
into consideration.
15 .tg2 l:tb8!?
15 ... tZJb4 160-0 tZJd5 17 tZJe4, intending
tZJc5, gives White an edge.
160-0 c5 17 'ii'g4 .txg2 18 ~xg2
b4 19 tZJe2 'ii'd5+ 20 cJi>gl .tf6 21
ltfdl 'iit'h5 22 'iit'xh5 l:xh5 23 l:ac1
At this point a draw was agreed in
W.Schmidt-Hracek, Poznan 1987. I
would rather be White.

9 Alatortsev's 9 ... ctJdS?!
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lbf3lbf6 4lbc3 e6 5
i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 i.h4 g5 9
lbxg5lbd5?! (D)
w
1 have for a long time felt that theory
was too pessimistic of 9 ... lbd5,
and this is one of those quite rare lines
that 1 have truly wanted to work for
Black. It is one of those fascinating,
romantic, sacrificial options that 1 tend
to get a special feeling for. 1 hope that
it has not affected my objectivity, but 1
must admit that the number of pages is
quite large in relation to its popularity.
White basically has two options.
He can either retreat the knight to f3,
or he can jump right into it and accept
the sacrifice by 10 lbxf7 'ii'xh4 11
lbxh8. While in the first case 1 believe
Black has already won a moral victory
(and 1 believe that there is nothing
special to fear here), 10 lbxf7 seems to
cause a much greater threat to the entire
system, and to be honest 1 feel that
Black may simply be lost in this line!
White does not accept the sacrifice
1 admit White has succeeded in damaging
Black's kingside substantially
when he decides simply to come back
with the knight to f3, but it has given
Black great activity, and the only (I
have to agree, it is quite a big one)
problem is that it is not possible to castle
queenside. However, it is possible
to generate short-term pressure without
the rook on a8, and in my opinion,
with correct play, it is enough to disturb
White in building up an attack.
w
Campos Moreno - Vera
Hospitalet 1988

ALATORTSEV'S 9 . ..lijd5?! 117
Black has just played 14 ... c6-cS,
opening up the position for his bishop
on b7. White also has some problems
due to the pinned knight on c3. In the
game, White decided to solve this immediately
with a pawn sacrifice ...
15 a3 .ixe3 16 bxe3 'iixa3 17 dxe5
White establishes a strong square
for the knight on d4.
17 ... 'iixe5
17 ... ttJxcS!? is also possible and
might even be stronger.
18 ttJd4 ttJxe5 19 .ih5 l:.g8! 20
l:.fel!
Now 20 ttJxe6? fails in view of
20 ... l:.xg2+!.
20 ... ttJe7!? 21.ig3 'iid5 22 f3
Black should now have played
22 ... ttJSg6! with a very unclear position.
White accepts the sacrifice
I think that White should generally be
trying to castle kingside, but it depends
on which of the 12th move options
he chooses (after 10 ttJxf7 'ti'xh4
11 ttJxh8 .ib4). A rule of thumb is that
if White plays 12 'ti'd2, he should be
castling queenside, while if White
plays 12 l:.cl it is self-evident that
White must castle kingside, or even
leave the king in the centre. The following
diagram is an example of what
White should not do:
White should now take the opportunity
to castle queens ide but instead
played 14 .ie2?! with the intention of
hiding the monarch on the kingside.
There followed 14 ... ttJxe5 150-0 (IS
w
S. Gillam - Botterill
England 1979
0-0-0 would still be better) 15 ... .ib7
16 a3 .ixe3 17 bxe3 and now Black
could have obtained a menacing attack
with 17 ... ttJf4; e.g., 18 l:.fel 'ii'gS
19 .ihS+ ~f8 20 'ii'd6+? ~g8 and
Black wins - Botterill.
B
P.H. Nielsen - Sveshnikov
Kemerovo 1995
White has just castled kingside, and
although his king does not look totally

lI8
THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SU V
safe with the enemy queen hovering
nearby and moves like ... .Jtb7 and
... .Jtf4 on Black's agenda, it is in reality
safer than its opposite number.
White threatens liJxbS, and sometimes
i.hS+ is annoying. Black's greatest
problem, however, is that after liJxbS
the c4-pawn becomes sensitive, and
falls if Black cannot maintain the
knight on eS. In fact, this is just what
happened in the game: 15 ... .Jtb7
(lS ... i.xc3 16 :'xc3! has proved good
for White) 16 liJxb5! .Jtxc5 17 liJg6!!
(deflecting the black knight from eS)
17 ... liJxg6 18 :'xc4 liJdf4 19 l:f.xc5
l:f.d8 20 liJd6+ :'xd6 21 .Jtb5+ rt;f7 22
'ii'xd6 and White won in a few more
moves.
Quick Summary
White has an immediate choice between
10 liJf3 (Line A) and 10 liJxf7!
(Line B). While 10 liJf3 avoids the
great complications arising from accepting
the sacrifice, I very much trust
Black's prospects in this line. Unfortunately,
this does not apply to 10
liJxf7!, which, despite how much I
want it to work for Black, I think is extremely
good for White. The correct
line is, after 1O ... 'ii'xh4 11 liJxh8 .Jtb4,
12 :'c1! (Line B2). 12 ... 'ii'e4+? has
been refuted and the attempt to rehabilitate
the line with 12 ... cS 13 dxcS
'ifgS does not look very promising due
to 14 .Jte2 .Jtb7 IS .JthS+! ~f8 16
liJf7! 'ii'xg2 17 .Jtf3 'ifg7 18 liJd8!. 12
a3 is an interesting alternative, which
looks promising.
The Theory of Alatortsev's
9 ... ttJd5
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 liJf3 liJf6 4 liJc3 e6 5
i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .Jth4 g5 9
tLJxg5 liJd5?!
Now:
A: 10 liJf3 118
B: 10 liJxf7! 120
A)
10 liJf3
White actually scores better with
this quiet move than with 10 liJxf7.
However, I think that Black has less to
fear here, and, perhaps more importantly,
Black can already claim a
moral victory in that White does not
dare to enter the complications after
10 liJxf7.
10 ... 'i*'aS 11 :'cl
11 'iWd2 allows 11...b4!? 12 liJxdS
(12 liJe4 .Jta6 is also satisfactory for
Black) 12 ... cxdS 13 .Jte2, as played in
Flohr-Stahlberg, Zurich 1934, and
now 13 ... .Jta6100ks fine for Black.
11 ... .Jtb4 12 'iVd2 liJd7 13 .Jte2 ( D)
B

ALATORTSEV'S 9.JiJd5?! 119
13 ... ..th7
Black prepares ... c5, which not only
attempts to undermine White's centre
but also gives the bishop excellent
scope on the long diagonal and gets rid
of the doubled c-pawns. There are a
couple of more direct attempts aimed
at White's queens ide, but they both
fail, mainly due to Black's poor development:
a) 13...lDxc3?! 14 bxc3..ta3 15 =tc2
b4 16 ..txc4 lDb6, Uhlmann-Nikolic,
Sarajevo 1980, and now White could
have got a substantial advantage with
17'iVf4, with the point 17 ... lDxc4 18
'it'f60-0 19'iVxh6 +- (Uhlmann).
b) 13 ... lD7b6 14 0-0 (a key move
when Black runs his knight to the
queenside like this is ..tf6, and here
even 14 ..tf6 lDxf6 15 exf6 might
promise White an edge, but I would
still prefer to wait) and now:
bl) 14 ... ..txc3 15 bxc3 lDa4 16
..tf6! (here it is!) 16 ... =tg8 17 'iVxh6
lDaxc3 18 ':c2 ..tb7 19lDg5lDxf6 20
'iVxf6 (20 lDxf7!?) 20 ... lDxe2+ 21
':xe2 'iVc7 22 f4 with a strong attack,
Bukic-Nikolic, Banja Luka 1981.
b2) 14 ... lDa4 15 ..tf6 =tg8 16'iVxh6
..txc3 17 'ir'h7!? 1:;[[8 18 bxc3lDaxc3
and now 19 ..tdl lDxf6 20 exf6 'iVa3
looked very good for Black in Amaral-Camejo,
Portuga11993. White can
improve with 19 =tc2, but perhaps it is
worth just transposing to Bukic-Nikolie
above with 17 bxc3lDaxc3 18 =tc2.
140-0 c5 (D)
14 ... lDf8 and 14 ... lD7b6 have both
been tried, but both moves are well
met by 15 ..tf6!. The text-move is the
most aggressive, and, it appears, the
best chance for Black to create counterplay.
w
15 a3
White replies by also choosing the
most aggressive move. By dealing
with the problem of the pinned knight
immediately White sacrifices a pawn.
Black must waste time taking it, while
White establishes a nice square for his
knight on d4, and is allocated more
time to build up the attack. However,
whether this is really worth the pawn
is far from clear. Other options:
a) 15 dxc5 ..txc3 16 bxc3 lDxc5
17 lWd4 lDa4 18 lDd2 (18 ..tf6!?)
18 ... lDaxc3 19..tf3 'ir'b6 20 'ir'g4

120 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
really cannot see what White's idea is;
16 ... i.xc3 17 bxc3 b4 18 dxc5 bxc3 19
'ii'd4 'ii'xc5 20 'ii'g4 'ii'f8 was OK for
Black in Gavrikov-Nogueiras, Tbilisi
1983, and even agreed drawn after 21
'ifd4) 16 ... i.xc3 17 bxc3 ltJf4 18 'ifd2
ltJxe2+ 19 'ifxe2 i.d5 20 dxc5l:txc5!
21ltJd2 'ii'xa2 22 'ii'g4!? ~f8 23ltJe4
l:tg8 with a complicated but probably
quite comfortable game for Black,
Nogueiras-Huerta, Santa Clara 1984.
IS ... i.xc3 16 bxc3 'ii'xa3 17 dxcS
(D)
B
17 ... ltJxcS!?
Also interesting is 17 ... 'ii'xc5 18
ltJd4 ltJxe5 19 i.h5 l:tg8! 20 l:tfe 1 (20
ltJxe6? l:txg2+ 21 ~xg2ltJf4+ 22 ~g3
ltJxh5+ -+) 20 ... ltJe7!? (20 ... ltJg6? 21
ltJxe6 fxe6 22 lhe6+ ~f7 23 ':'xg6
':'xg6 24 'ii'xh6 +-) 21 i.g3 'ii'd5 22
f3!, and now rather than 22 ... l:tg5? 23
'ii'xg5 hxg5 24 l:txe5 'it'd7 25 ltJxe6
with a clear advantage for White, Campos
Moreno-Vera, Hospitalet 1988,
Black should play 22 ... ltJ5g6!. Vera
then supplies the line 23 i.g4 h5 24
i.h3 h4, and this does actually look
very promising for Black.
18 ltJd4!? ltJe4 19 'ifelltJexc3 20
i.hS
Up until here we have followed
analysis by Vera. White can claim
some attack as compensation for the
sacrificed pawns, but it is far from
convincing.
20 ... l:tg8 21 i.g3
2lltJxe6? ':xg2+! wins for Black.
21...l:tgS 22 i.f3
Again 22 ltJxe6? does not work,
this time due to 22 ... .:.xh5 23 ltJg7+
~f8 24 ltJxh5 'ii'xc1 25 'it'xc1 ltJe2+
26 ~hlltJxcl, when Black emerges a
pawn up with three passed pawns on
the queenside.
22 ... b4 23 l:tal 'iWb2 24 i.h4 ':'g8
It is not clear how White can improve
his position. The rook on the g­
file combined with the bishop on b7
makes it almost impossible to release
the light-squared bishop from its duty
on f3. Perhaps 25 g3 should be considered
but I cannot believe that White's
compensation is adequate.
B)
10 ltJxf7!
White wins an exchange with this
forcing continuation. Black's hope is
that he will either trap the h8-knight
or launch a successful attack against
White's king.
10 ... 'ifxh4 llltJxh8 i.b4 (D)
Note that Black cannot trap the
knight immediately with 11 ... ltJxc3
12 bxc3 i.g7 since White plays 13

ALATORTSEV'S 9 ... 0,d5?! 121
'ti'c2 (13 tOg6 'ti'e4+ 14 .te2 'i;;f7 is
less clear) 13 ... .txh8 14 'ti'h7 winning.
w
Now:
Bl: 12 'ti'd2!? 121
B2: 12.l:tc1! 124
The latter is my clear preference.
The old main line was 12 'ifd2 but it
makes more sense to keep the queen
on the d1-h5 diagonal, as it is often
very useful to have the possibility of
.th5( +). That is, of course, only after
having ascertained that 12 ... 'ife4+ is
nothing but a blow in the air. However,
the theoretical status of 12 'ti'd2 also
looks very promising for White, although
I have a strange feeling that
Black is able to improve somewhere.
Hence my preference for the move 12
.l:tc1!.
I should also mention that 12 a3!? is
an interesting idea. It has only been
tried in one game (that I know of), but
it remains a mystery to me why it has
not been repeated. Sadler goes as far
as describing 12 a3 as "almost a forced
win"; I will not go that far, but it does
look very promising:
a) 12 ... .txc3+ 13 bxc3 tOxc3
(13 ... c5!?) 14 'ti'd2 tOd5 15 .te2 tOd7
(15 ... c5 16 dxc5 tOc6 17 tOg6 also favours
White) 16 tOg6 'ti'g5 (16 .. :i!i'e4
17 'ifxh6 'i;;d8 18 'ti'h4+ +-) 17 'it'xg5
hxg5 18 h4 should win for White.
b) 12 ... .ta5 is perhaps best, but
then Black is deprived of some of his
sharpest options in the main line.
c) 12 ... tOxc3 13 'it'f3! 'it'xd4 (if
13 ... .ta5 14 bxc3 'it'xd4 then 15 'it'f7+
'i;;d8 16 J::td1 and White wins - Tangborn;
or 13 ... tOe4+ 14 axb4 tOg5 15
'it'f8+ 'i;;xf8 16 tOg6+ 'i;;g7 17 tOxh4
tOa6 18 .te2 tOxb4 19 0-0 tOc2 20
l:tad1 a5 21 f4! ±) 14 'it'h5+ 'i;;d8 15
axb4 'ti'e4+ (or 15 ... tOd5 16 .te2 tOd7
17 tOf7+ 'i;;c7 18 0-0 tOf4 19 'it'f3
tOxe2+ 20 'it'xe2 'iff4 21 tOd6 tOxe5
22 tOxc8 'it>xc8 23 J::tfe 1 +-) 16 .te2
tOxe217 'it'xe2 'ti'h718 't!Vd2+'it>c719
'it'd6+ 'i;;b7 20 J::td1 't!Vxh8 21 't!Ve7+ ±
Stefansson-Inkiov, Gausdal1990.
91)
121iVd2!? c5
This is clearly the most critical.
Other moves can be dealt with briefly:
a) 12 ... tOd7 13 0-0-0 .tb7 is possible
but Harding does not think Black's
compensation is adequate after 14 g3
.txc3 (14 ... 'it'g4 15 't!Vxh6 is good for
White) 15 gxh4.txd2+ 16J::txd2c517
.l:tg1!'
b) 12 .. :iVg4 is Fritz's suggestion
after a short 'think', but 13 .te2 't!Vxg2
140-0-0 looks dangerous.

122 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
130-0-0!
Strangely enough, the safest place
for White's king is actually on the
queenside. Others:
a) 13 a3?! is an inferior version of
Stefansson's idea (12 a3!?) above:
13 ... i.xc3 14 bxc3liJc6 IS dxcS i.b7
(lS ... 'iie4+!?) 16 i.e2liJxeS 17 'ii'd4
'ii'f6 180-0-0 'ii'xh8 19 i.xc4?! bxc4
20 l:1he1 liJf7 + Buturin-Mikhalchishin,
USSR 1977.
b) 13 dxcS liJd7 and now White's
best is probably 140-0-0 liJxeS transposing
to the note to White's 14th
move, while there are also two inferior
options:
b1) 14 i.e2?! liJxeS IS 0-0 (IS
0-0-0 is better, transposing to note 'a'
to White's 14th move) IS ... i.b7 16 a3
i.xc3 (16 ... i.xcS also seems to give
Black a promising attacking position,
but the text-move is the simplest) 17
bxc3, S.Gillam-Botterill, England 1979,
and now 17 ... liJf4 18 %:tfe1 'ii'gS 19
i.hS+ ~f8 20 'ii'd6+? ~g8 wins for
Black (Botterill).
b2) 14 g3 'ii'hS IS i.g2 i.b7 160-0
O-O-O! and then:
b21) 17 'ii'e2 'iixe2 18liJxe2 %:txh8
19 liJd4 liJxeS 20 liJxe6 (20 liJxbS!
i.xcs 21 l:1ae1 a6 22 %:txeS axbS 23
%:txe6 reaches a rather level endgame)
20 ... liJd3 favours Black, Timman-Henley,
Surakarta/Denpasaar 1983.
b22) 17 'ii'c2 %:txh8 (17 ... i.xc3 18
bxc3 %:txh8 19 a4 b4 20 cxb4liJxeS 21
'ii'e4! also favours White) 18 liJxb5
i.xcS 19 'ii'xc4 'ifi>b8, Finegold-Waddingham,
Oakham 1986, and now
White should play 20 liJd6 i.xd6 21
exd6 with the better game; for example,
21...%:tc8 22 'ii'e4liJcS 23 'iid4 eS
24 'ii'd 1 'ii'f7 2S 'ii'd2.
Returning to the position after 13
0-0-0 (D):
B
13 ... liJc6
This is a difficult choice, as there is
a serious alternative, viz. 13 ... cxd4, although
this might appear rather shaky
after 14 'ii'xd4:
a) Then after 14 ... 'iigS+ IS f4!
liJxf4 16liJe4! liJe2+ 17 ~b1 liJxd4
18liJxgS, Shashin-Monin, Leningrad
1980, 18 ... hxgS 191hd4liJc620l:1e4!,
followed by 21 h4, White has much
the better game.
b) However, Black can try playing
14 ... 'ii'xd4!? IS l:1xd4liJxc3 16 bxc3
i.xc3, when the attempt to hang on to
the e-pawn with 17 l:1e4 i.b7 18 %:te3
i.d4 19 l:1e2 liJc6 gives Black a very
active position well worth the material
sacrificed. Hence White should play
17 %:tdl!, when unfortunately there
does not seem to be time to grab the

ALATORTSEV'S 9."tiJd5?! 123
e-pawn: 17 ... .txe5 (Black can try
17 ... .tb7 but the compensation after
18 .te2liJd7 19 .th5+ Wd8 20 f4 rJi;c7
21liJn .txg2 22 l:thgl .td5 is hardly
sufficient) 18 .te2! .tb7 (18 ... .txh8
19 .tf3liJa6 20 .txa8liJb4 21 rJi;bl is
not impressive) 19 .th5+ rJi;e7 20
liJg6+ rJi;f6 21liJxe5 Wxe5 22 ':'hel+
rJi;f6 23 ':'d6 .td5 24 .tg4 and White
wins.
14liJg6!? (D)
This brings out the knight immediately
before it gets in danger of being
trapped in the corner, and appears the
most dangerous for Black. White has
another promising option, viz. 14
dxc5 liJxe5 and now:
a) 15 .te2 .tb7 16 g3 'iVf6 17 f4
liJxc3 18 .th5+! ~f8 19 fxe5liJxa2+
20 ~bl 'iVf5+ 21 rJi;xa2 .txd2 22
':'hfl, as analysed by Botterill, is probably
also slightly better for White, for
example after 22 ... 'iVxfl 23 ':'xfl +
~g8 24 liJg6 .te4 25 liJe7+ rJi;h8 26
c6.
b) 15 f4! 'iVxf4 (it is possible to
take on c3 flrst, but I prefer to keep the
bishop) 16 'ti'xf4liJxf4 and now:
bl) 17 g3liJfd3+ 18 .txd3liJxd3+
19 ~c2 (19 ':'xd3!? cxd3 20 liJxb5
l:tb8 21 liJd6+ ~f8 22 liJg6+ has been
suggested as an improvement, and
here I disagree with Peter Wells, who
believes that Black is flne; after
22.A.)g7 23 liJf4 .lixc5 24 liJxc8
.lle3+ 25 'it>bl .txf4 26liJxa7, I think
White keeps an advantage, because
the knight is not in danger of being
trapped, and if Black is not careful
White may even be able to round up
the d-pawn) 19 ... .lixc3 20 ~xc3 .tb7
21 ':'hfl b4+ 22 'it>xc4 liJxb2+ 23
'it>xb4 liJxdl 24 l:txdl l:tb8 25 'it>c3
':'c8 and Black has enough counterplay
to draw, Razuvaev-Inkiov, Moscow
1986.
b2) 17liJxb5 'it>e7! (17 ... ':'b8? 18
liJd6+ rJi;e7 19 liJxc4 wins the c4-
pawn without compensation, Ribli­
Nogueiras, Montpellier Ct 1985) 18
c6 and now Polugaevsky's 18 ... ':'b8!?
mixes things up considerably. 19liJxa7
i.a6 almost traps the knight, while if it
retreats, Black will play ... liJfd3+.
B
14 ... .txc3
14 ... liJxc3 15liJxh4liJxa2+ 16 ~bl
i.xd2 17 l:txd2 liJab4 18 liJf3 is good
for White according to Polugaevsky.
15 bxc3
Now there are the following possibilities
for Black:
a) 15 ... 'iVg4 16 'iVxh6 and White
wins.
b) 15 ... 'ti'h516liJf4liJxf417'iVxf4
cxd4 18 cxd4 liJb4 19 'iWd2 a5, with

124 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
the idea of ... .ltd7, ... l:c8 and ... c3,
with compensation.
c) IS ... 'ilgS!? 16 'ilxgS hxgS 17
h4 c;t>f7 18 h5 lDxc3 19 l:d2 cxd4! (or
19 ... lDxd4 20 h6 c;t>xg6 21 h7 .lta6 22
h8'ili' l:xh8 23 l:xh8 ± Corfield-Stoker,
corr. 1990) 20 g4 .ltb7 21 .ltg2 d3 22
f4 lDe2+ 23 l:xe2 dxe2 24 fS is given
as much better for White by Korchnoi,
but this appears far from clear after
24 ... l:b8 with the idea of ... lDd4; for
example, 2S h6 exfS 26 gxfS lDd4 27
e6+ c;t>f6 28 .ltxb7 lDxfS, when suddenly
Black is on top.
62)
12l:c1! (D)
B
12 ... c5
I was once quite interested in this
line, and this was the move to which I
devoted most attention. Black attempts
to soften up White's centre, and with
some luck he might even trap the white
knight on h8.
12 ... 'ili'e4+? has a poor reputation.
13 .lte2lDf4 and now:
a) 14 a3lDxg2+ IS c;t>f1! lLle3+ 16
fxe3 'ili'xhl+ 17 ~f2 'ili'xh2+ 18 ~el
.ltxc3+ (18....lte7 19 ~d2! ± Timman­
Ljubojevic, Buenos Aires 1980) 19
bxc3 as 20 ~d2 b4 21 axb4 axb4 22
cxb4 and then:
al) 22 ... c3+ 23 l:xc3 l:a2+ 24 l:c2
l:xc2+ 2S 'ifxc2 .lta6 is given by
Ftacnik with no assessment, but 26
'ifg6+ followed by 'ifhS looks good
for White.
a2) Black can try 22 ...'ili'f2!, when
it seems White has to allow a repetition:
23 l:bc4 l:a3 24 l:c3 l:a2+ 2S
l:c2 l:a3 26 l:c3.
b) 14 'ili'd2! looks stronger; Black
may then choose between:
bl) 14 ... lDxg2+ IS c;t>dl .ltxc3
(IS... lLle3+ 16 'ifxe3 'ili'xhl+ 17 c;t>c2
'ifxh2 18 'ili'f3 'ili'h4 19lLlxbS cxbS 20
'ili'xa8 'ili'xd4 21 .lthS+ wins for White
according to Smyslov) 16 bxc3lLle3+
17 'ifxe3 'ili'xh 1 + 18 ~d2 'if g2 19
'ili'xh6 c;t>d8 20 'ili'f8+ ~c7 21lLlf7 1-0
S.Pedersen-M.1ohansen, Denmark tt
1997.
b2) 14 ... lLld3+ IS ~f1 lLlxcl 16
'ili'xcl (16lLlxe4 .ltxd2 17lLlxd2lLlxa2
18 lLle4 as gave Black some counterplay
in Plachetka-Jokimidis, Sofia
1979) 16 ...'ili'xd4 17 'ili'xh6 .ltxc3 18
bxc3 'ili'xc3 19 g3 lLld7 20 'ili' gS! lLlxeS
21 .lth5+ ~d7 22 'ifg7+ ~d6 23
lLlf7+ ~d5 24 .ltf3+ +- Wells.
13 dxc5 'iVg5
This has only been played a few
times in recent practice, with good results
for Black. However, if my analysis
turns out to be watertight then there

ALATORTSEV'S 9 . ..tiJd5?! 125
is an indication that Black should dump
the Alatortsev forever.
Other moves give little ground for
optimism:
a) 13 ... ltJd7 14 .i.e2lL'lxe5 (14 ... .i.b7
15 .i.h5+ ~d8 16 0-0 .i.xc3 17 ':xc3
rl;c7 18 lL'lg6 'ii'e4 19 lIg3 +- Smyslov-Ragozin,
USSR Ch (Leningrad)
1947) 150-0 (D) with a branch:
B
al) 15 ... .i.xc3 16 ':hc3! 'iVf6 (or
16 ... lL'lxc317.i.h5+'ifi>f818'ii'd6+rl;g8
19 'ii'xe5 lL'ld5 20 .i.f7+ +- Nemet­
Karaklajic, Yugoslav Ch 1979) 17
.i.h5+ ~d8 18 f4lL'ld3 19 ':xd3 cxd3,
Torrento Caballero-Ruiz Marquez,
corr. 1985, and now 20 lL'lf7+ followed
by 21 'iWxd3 is winning for White.
a2) 15 ... .i.b7 is trickier, but good
for White:
a21) 16 .i.h5+?! 'i;e7 17 lL'lxd5+
(or 17 lL'lg6+ lL'lxg6 18 .i.xg6 ':g8
with a strong attack) 17 ... .i.xd5 18 f4
.i.xc5+ 19 ~h 1 lIg8! 20 ':c2 lL'ld3!
(sacrificing another exchange but
Black's minor pieces are much superior
to White's rooks) 21lL'lg6+ ':xg6
22 J.xg6lL'lxf4 23 ':xf4 'iWxf4 24.i.h5?
(White's rook gets into trouble after
this; Ftacnik suggests 24 'ii'el as a
better defence) 24 ... .i.e4! 25 lIc3
(there is no better square for the rook;
25 ':e2 is answered by 25 ... .i.d3 26
':el J.b4, and 25 lId2 by 25 ... .i.d6)
25 ... .i.d4 26 ':g3 (26 'iWxd4? 'iWfl + 27
'iVgl .i.xg2#) 26 ... .i.xb2 27 ':g8 'ii'c1!,
Zagorskis-Vera, Elista OL 1998. The
exchange of queens liquidates to a
clearly favourable ending for Black,
as the passed c-pawn is very strong.
a22) 16 lL'lxb5! is much stronger,
and a possibility I discovered with
GM Peter Heine Nielsen, which he
was later able to use successfully:
16 ... .i.xc5 (16 ... 0-0-0 17 lL'ld6+ 'ili>b8
18 lL'lhf7 lL'lxf7 19 lL'lxf7 ':g8 20 .i.f3
±) 17lL'lg6!! (this fine move deflects
the e5-knight from the defence of the
c4-pawn, and with it Black's position
falls apart) 17 ... lL'lxg6 18 lhc4 lL'ldf4
(18 ... 'iIi'e7 19 .i.h5) 19 lIxc5 l:td8
(19 ... J.xg2 20 lL'lc7+ ~f7 21 lL'lxa8
J.xa8 22 .i.f3 and White wins; note
the importance of the black queen not
being able to get to the g-file) 20
lL'ld6+ ':xd6 (20 ... ~f8 21lL'lxb7 l:txdl
22 J.xdl +-) 21 .i.b5+ 'ifi>f7 22 'ii'xd6
'ili'g4 23 'ili'c7+ ~g8 24 'ili'xb7 lL'lh3+
25 ~hllL'lxf2+ 26 l:txf2 1-0 P.H.Nielsen-Sveshnikov,
Kemerovo 1995.
b) 13 ... .i.xc3+!? (the point of this
move is that Black avoids certain lines
where White simply recaptures with
the rook, so in this respect it is strange
that Timman does not follow up similarly
to line 'aI' above) 14 bxc3 'iWg5

126 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
(14 ... ttJd7!?) 15 j.e2 j.b7 160-0 (16
j.h5+!? 'iti>f8 17 ttJf7 'ii'xg2 18 j.f3
'ii'g7 19 ttJd8! looks good, similarly to
the main line) 16 ... ttJf4 17 j.f3 ttJc6
18 h4! 'ii'xh4 19 g3 'ii'g5 20 ttJf7!
'iti>xf7 21 'ii'd7+ ttJe7 22 'ii'xb7 l:.g8 23
l:.cel h5 24 j.g2 +- P.Nikolic-Timman,
Wijk aan Zee.
c) 13 ... 'ii'e4+!? is the move I have
spent most time on, besides 13 ... 'ii'g5,
trying to rehabilitate the line for Black.
It has a few advantages over the immediate
12 .. .'ii'e4+, but, unfortunately,
some disadvantages as well! After 14
'ii'e2 (14 j.e2 j.xc3+ 15 bxc3 ttJf4 is
worth exploring; now that c6 is available
and the a8-hl diagonal is opened,
Black some extra possibilities compared
to 12 ... 'ii'e4+) Black can try:
c1) 14 ... 'Wd4 15 'Wh5+ 'iti>d8 16
'ii'xh6 ttJxc3 17 ttJf7+ 'iti>c7 18 bxc3
j.xc3+ 19l:.xc3 'Wxc3+ 20 'Wd2 'ii'xd2+
(20 ... 'ii'al + 21 'iti>e2 ttJc6 22 'iti>e3! +-)
21 ~xd2 j.b7 22 h4 is very good for
White.
c2) 14 .. .'ii'f4 15 'ii'h5+ 'iti>d8 16
'ii'xh6! ±.
c3) 14 ... 'ii'f5!? is interesting, with
the idea of simply developing with
... ttJd7. White's queen is now misplaced
on e2.
14 j.e2 j.b7 (D)
15 j.h5+!
Now we see why White's queen has
to stay on d 1. Other moves have caused
Black fewer problems:
a) 150-0 ttJxc3 16 j.h5+ 'iti>f8 17
'ii'd6+ ~g8 18 'ii'xe6+ ~xh8 19 'ii'e8+
'ii'g8 20 'ii'xg8+ 'iti>xg8 21 bxc3 j.xc5
reached a far from clear ending, but
one in which Black's minor pieces become
very active, in Timoshchenko­
Kozlov, Tashkent 1982.
b) 15 j.f3 ttJd7 16 0-0 j.xc3 17
bxc3 'iti>e7 18 j.e4?! (18 a4!) 18 ... l:.xh8
19 f4 ~ g7 20 'Wd4l:.c8! with a highly
unclear position, Van Wely-Borst, Antwerp
1995.
15 ... 'iti>f8 16 ttJf7!
Lanka gives the line 16 'ii'f3+ 'iti>g7
170-0 'iti>xh8 18 ~f8+ 'ii'g8! (18 ... 'iti>h7
19 j.f3!) 19 ~xh6+, when White
probably has to take the perpetual after
19 ... 'ii'h 7 20 'ii'f8+. Of course White
can exchange queens and from a purely
materialistic viewpoint this looks very
good, but Black's pieces are active,
and I have a feeling that in practice
this would be a very risky decision.
16 ... 'ifxg2 17 j.f3 'ifg7
17 ... 'Wg6 is also met by 18 ttJd8.
18 ttJd8!
White has a clear, perhaps winning,
advantage, e.g., 18 ... j.xc3+ 19 bxc3
~xe5+ 20 'iti>f1 j.c8 21 'ii'd2 'ii'g5 22
~xg5 hxg5 23 l:.el and White wins.

10 White Gambits: 9 exf6!?
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 e6 5
i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 i.h4 g5 9
exf6!? (D)
White introduces the idea of i.hS, attacking
f7 again. For example:
B
B
Contrary to what we have seen in
most lines until now, it is here White
who plays in gambit style. In fact, after
9 ... gxh4 10 ttJeS 'ii'xf6 White is
two pawns down with no immediate
prospects of regaining any of the invested
material. However, Black's
pawns are almost randomly spread out
over the board, and what really counts
is if White can engineer an attack
based upon his lead in development.
The attack against f7
The most vulnerable point in Black's
position is f7, and White already has
an eye on this pawn when playing
ttJeS. By developing the bishop to e2
Guimaraes - Matsuura
Brazilian Ch (Rio de Janeiro) 1998
Black's pawn-structure is clearly
not admirable, but he is two pawns up.
Particularly the h4-pawn is not worth
much and hence Black often throws it
forward, intending to disrupt White's
kingside:
12 ... h313 i.h5!
A strong move but a very common
idea. 13 g3 could possibly be met by
13 ... cS, so White simply ignores Black's
intentions by counter-attacking the
f7-pawn. The pawn is not that difficult
to defend though, but as we shall see
the rook is often unfortunately placed
onh7.

128 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
13 ... lth7
Alternatively, Black can try 13 ... hxg2
14 ltgl lth7 15 .1f3 'ike7 16 ltxg2
l:.g7 (White often wins a tempo on this
rook as it is unprotected on h7 and
ltgS is sometimes also an option for
White, so Black reacts by moving the
rook again to neutralize the g-file) 17
ltJe4 a6 (Black has serious difficulties
completing his development; 17 ... ltJd7
is met by IS ltJxd7 ~xd7 19 ltJc5+
~cS 20 axb5) IS ltJc5 lhg2 19 j.xg2
.1g7 20 'ii'g4 ~f8 (20 ... j.xe5 21 'ikgS+
'ii'fS 22 'ii'xfS+ c;f;;>xfS 23 dxe5 would
leave Black's remaining pieces struggling
for air) 210-0-0 j.cS 22 f4 with
a terrific position for White, Wells­
Shabalov, London Lloyds Bank 1994.
14 g3ltJd7 IS 0-0 0-0-0 16 'ii'c2
White attempts to gain a tempo on
the rook and is now ready to meet
16 ... ltg7 by 17ltJxd71::txd7 IS axb5.
16 ... ltJxeS 17 dxeS 'ii'fS 18 'ii'xfS
exfS 19 axbS .tcS
Black has reasonable counterplay
but he must continue playing very energetically
to compensate for his horrible
pawns.
Challenging eS with ... ltJd7
White's e5-knight is an important
piece, and having to defend f7 often
causes Black inconvenience, so the
best defensive plan for Black is as
soon as possible to challenge the knight
by playing ... ltJd7. However, this may
not look that easy, as playing ... ltJd7
leaves the c6-pawn en prise unless
Black has defended it with ... j.b7.
Here are a few examples:
B
Kravtsov - Se. Ivanov
Russian Cht (St Petersburg) 1999
Here Black decided that even though
the c6-pawn is only defended by the
bS-knight, he could still afford to remove
the defence in order to challenge
the e5-knight instead:
1l ... ltJd7! 12lLlxc6
This is the only critical move.
12 ... j.b7 13 j.f3 a6!
This is the key move that makes
11...ltJd7 playable. White's knight
cannot be allowed to b5, and now White
also problems retreating the c6-knight
without making major concessions.
14 0-0 j.g7 IS a4 b4 16 ltJe4 'ii'f4
17 'iVc1 'iVc7 18 'iVxc4 j.xc6 19 l:.acl
l:.c8 20 'ii'xb4 .1f8 21 'ii'c3
For analysis of the alternative 21
'ikel see the theory section (Line B).
21...j.xe4! 22 'ii'xc7 ltxc7 23 l:.xc7
j.xf3 24 gxf3 ltg8+ 2S ~hl ltgS!
The ending is advantageous for
Black.

WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 129
B
Bellon - Lu. Perez
Havana Capablanca mem 1999
By playing an early a4, White usually
attempts to prevent Black from
playing ... ttJd7, the idea being that it
would leave Black's queenside too
loose. Nevertheless, here Black can
play:
12 ... ttJd7! 13ltJxd7 ~xd7 14 i.f3
a615 axb5
White does not achieve anything by
opening the a-file, so 15 0-0 might be
better, although White's opening then
appears far from convincing.
15 ... axb5 16l:ba8 i.xa8 17 'iVai
i.b7 18 'iVa7 ~c8 190-0 .l:tg8 20 ..te4
'iVf4 21 .l:tel f5
Black is winning.
Quick Summary
In my opinion good antidotes to 9
exf6 have been found, as in the majority
of lines Black can easily neutralize
White's initiative with a timely ... ltJd7.
For example, after 10 ltJe5 'iVxf6, both
11 g3 (Line A) and 11 ..te2 (Line B)
are well met by l1...ltJd7. 11 a4 (Line
C) is White's best try, to which Black
has reacted in various ways. The provocative
11...c5 (Line C 1) looks too
ambitious, while 1l...i.b7 (Line C2)
used to have a slightly bad reputation
but is now fully rehabilitated in view
of 12 ... ltJd7! in reply to 12 i.e2. This
seems to be Black's very best approach,
and hence the popular 11.. .h3 !?
(Line C3) will only have real relevance
in the event of something being
found for White in Line C2.
The Theory of 9 exf6!?
I d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4ltJc3 e6 5
..\lg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 i.h4 g5 9
exf6!? gxh4 10 ttJe5 (D)
This is White's basic idea. His previous
move vacated the e5-square,
which is now accessible to the knight.
This knight serves several purposes.
Above all its main function is to make
it hard for Black to develop smoothly
( ... ltJd7 drops a pawn after ltJxc6,

130 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLA V
although Black should often enter this
kind of transaction) but it is also ideally
placed for attacking purposes
against the sensitive f7 -square.
lO ..:iVxf6
There are various other moves to
consider but this is the most trustworthy.
Black collects a second pawn and
simultaneously gets rid of the annoying
f6-pawn, which makes normal development
hard for Black. For instance,
1O ... ttJd7? (and some of the other alternatives)
runs into 11 ttJxf7!. Of the
more reliable alternatives, 10 ....:gS!?
is worth looking at: 11 ~e2 (perhaps
11 g3 ttJd7 12 ~g2 ~b7 13 0-0 ttJxe5
14 dxe5 'fIc7 15 .:tel is more accurate)
11...ttJd7 (the point; Black has ruled
out the sacrifice on f7, so he can immediately
begin the attack on the e5-
knight) 12 ~f3 (12 ttJxc6 'tib6 13 ~f3
~b7 14 d5 ttJxf6 looks good for
Black) 12 ... ~b7 (12... ttJxe5!? 13 dxe5
'tic7 14 0-0 ~b7 15 .:tel gives White
good compensation but might be even
better with the pawn on g3 and bishop
on g2, cf. 11 g3) 13 ~xc6 (13 O-O!?)
13 ... ~xc6 14 ttJxc6 'fIc7 15 d5 ttJc5
(15 ... ttJxf6 is worth considering) 16
0-0 'fIf4 17 ~h 1 ttJd3 IS dxe6. Both
sides are walking on a tightrope, and
now, rather than lS ... ~c5?, as in Ikonnikov-Stojanovski,
Plovdiv 1990, Ikonnikov
suggests that Black can play
"IS....:txg2!! 19 exf7+ ~xf7! 20 ~xg2
~d6 21 'ii'h5+ ~e6! 22 'fId5+ ~d7 23
ttJe5+ 'fIxe5! 24 'fIxe5 ~xe5 with
compensation" - perhaps true in the
final position but 24 'fIxb5+! is more
accurate, when White has an advantage.
Returning to the position after
1O ... 'fIxf6 (D):
w
White has the following options:
A: 11 g3 130
B: 11 ~e2 132
C: 11 a4 134
A)
11 g3
White intends to deploy his bishop
on the hI-aS diagonal. While the
bishop would be safest on g2, White
could also adopt the same plan with 11
~e2 (Line B), intending to put the
bishop on f3. This has a further advantage
compared to 11 g3, namely that
sometimes White can begin an attack
against f7 by playing ~h5.
11 ... ttJd7!?
Challenging the e5-knight has been
the most common defence for Black.
Incidentally, in Line B, 11 ~e2 ttJd7:
White can capture on c6, whereas this
would be an error in this particular

WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 131
position since White's light-squared
bishop is not defended after 12 tiJxc6
.tb7 13 .ltg2, and therefore 13 .. JXc8
is decisive.
Another plausible defence (maybe
even stronger) is 11 ... .ltg7 12 .tg2 0-0
13 tiJxb5 tiJd7 14 tiJxc6 .tb7, and
while White has levelled the material
balance Black has caught up on development.
In Goldin-Shabalov, Vilnius
1988 chances were about equal after
15 0-0 .ltxc6 (15 ... a6!?) 16 .ltxc6
%:.ad8 17 'iVa4 tiJb8 18 .tg2 a6 19 tiJa3
hxg3 20 hxg3 'iVg5 21 tiJxc4 .ltxd4.
12 'ii'e2 (D)
I have already mentioned that 12
tiJxc6 is a mistake, so there remain
only the text-move and 12 f4. However,
12 f4 turns out to expose White's
position too much; e.g., 12 ... .ltb7 13
.ltg2 tiJxe5 14 fxe5 (14 dxe5 'iVd8 15
'iVf3 'ii'd3 16 'iVxd3 cxd3 17 tiJxb5
.ltb4+ 18 tiJc3 0-0-0 +) 14 ... 'iVe7 15
0-0 0-0-0 16 'iVh5 %:'xd4 17 %:'xf7 'iV g5
18 'iVxg5 hxg5 19 tiJe4 h3 20 .thl
%:.d5 with a clear advantage for Black,
F.Portisch-Ribli, Warsaw 1979.
B
12 ... tiJxeS
Botvinnik's choice in his encounter
with Bronstein in the 1951 Soviet
Championship. Few have been willing
to repeat the path chosen by Botvinnik.
Hence, the sharp 12 ... c5 has attracted
more attention. However, the
onus is on Black to rehabilitate this
line after it was found that 13 'iVe4! almost
forces a queen sacrifice that may
not quite be sound (in passing it should
be noted that 13 tiJc6 is best met by a
similar sacrifice - and actually the circumstances
appear slightly more inspiring
here - to the main line, viz.
13 ... .tb7 14 tiJd5 .ltxc6 15 tiJxf6+
tiJxf6 16 %:.gl cxd4 17 'ii'e5 i.b4+ 18
~dl ~e7 19 i.g2 i.d6 20 'ii'xd4 i.xg2
21 %:.xg2 %:.hd8 22 ~cl c3! with excellent
counterplay), 13 ... %:.b8 (13 ... cxd4
14 tiJxd7 ~xd7 15 'ii'xa8 dxc3 16
'iVxa7+ ~e8 17 i.g2! +-) 14 tiJc6.
White is threatening 15 tiJd5, thus
leaving Black with two options:
a) 14 ... i.b7 15 tiJd51i'd8 16 tiJxd8
.txd5 17 'iVf4 %:.xd8 (17 ... i.xhl is inferior
due to 18 tiJxf7 %:.h7 19 tiJd6+
.txd6 20 'iVxd6 %:.b6 21 1i'f4 ±) 18
%:.gl and now:
al) 18 ... .tg7 19 gxh4 i.xd4 20
0-0-0 ~e7 21 %:.xd4 cxd4 22 1i'xd4
and Black does not have sufficient
compensation, Piket-Murshed, Palma
de Mallorca 1989.
a2) 18 ... cxd4 19 1i'xd4 i.b4+ 20
~e2 ~e7 (20 ... %:.g8 is more circumspect,
since then in the event of 21
'iVxh4?, Black has 21...tiJe5!, but 21
.th3 is still better for White) 21 %:.dl

132 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
(the simple 21 'it'xh4+!? is also worth
considering) 2l...ttJc5 22 'it'xh4+ f6 23
~h3 ± Peek-Savchenko, Groningen
open 1993.
b) 14 ... l:.b7! 15 d5 (Piket suggests
15 0-0-0 b4 16 lbd5 'it'g6 17 'it'xg6
fxg6 18 ~h3! with an initiative for
White) 15 ... ~g7! (15... b4 16 dxe6
'it'xe6 17 ~xc4 'it'xe4+ 18 lbxe4 l:.c7
19 lbaS, followed by 0-0-0, gives
White compensation) 16 l:.dl (16 dxe6
'it'xe6 17 'it'xe6+ fxe6 18 0-0-0 is
better, after which White can claim
some sort of compensation in view of a
number of weak black pawns) 16 ... 0-0
17 d6!? l:.b6 18 lbe7+ 'it'h8 and
White's attack is lost in the sands.
13 dxe5 "ilie7 14 i.g2
14lbe4? can be met by 14 ...'it'b4+.
14 ... ~b7 150-0-0 i.g7 (D)
16l:.d6!
A major improvement on the previously
played 16 f4. White sacrifices a
second pawn in return for a rapid mobilization
of all his forces. Black will
have to accept the pawn offer to punish
White for omitting f4, but the result is
a difficult defence.
After 16 f4 0-0 17 l:.d6 :ad8 18
l:.hd 1 l:.xd6 19 exd6 'it'd8 20 lbe4 'it'aS
21 'it'bl, Bronstein-Botvinnik, USSR
Ch (Moscow) 1951, Black should play
21...h3! 22 ~xh3 c5 23 lbxc5 ~d5
with excellent play for Black in view
of his two very powerful bishops -
Botvinnik.
16 ... hxg3
16 ... 0-0 17 l:.hdl :ad8 18 'it'd2
l:.xd6 19 exd6 'it'f6? (19 ... 'it'd8 is more
profound, but the advantage of White's
move-order is shown after 20 d7!,
when the strong passed pawn holds up
the majority of Black's forces) 20 lbe4
'it'g6 21 d7 l:.d8 22 'it'f4 ± Peek-Van
Linde, Groningen open 1997.
17 hxg3 "ilig5+ 18 f4 "ilixg3 19 "ilid2
b4 20 lbe4 c3!?
20 ... 'it'g6 21lbc5 c3 22 bxc3 bxc3
23 'it'f2 gives White the advantage.
21 bxc3 bxc3 22lbxc3 :b8
22 ... ~f8 23 :d3 ~a3+ 24 ~dl
'it'g6 25 l:.d7 ±.
23 l:.d3 'it' g6 24 lbe4
White has a terrific attack. While
White is simply invading the d-file,
Black's queen is merely a spectator
from the kingside and can even be
subjected to an attack after :g3.
B)
11 ~e2lbd7!
There is no need to delve into the
alternatives for too long. The textmove
has an obvious indication of being
the best move in the position:

WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 133
White has to react to the attack against
what is currently his most powerful
piece, namely the eS-knight. Here is a
short survey of the alternatives:
a) 1l ... ..td6? 12 ttJe4 ..tb4+ 13
~f1 'fie7 14 a3 J.aS 15 ..thS ± Petursson-Isler,
Bern 1992.
b) ll.....tb4 12 ..to ..tb7 13 0-0
.ixc3 14 bxc3 a6 IS 'ue1 'ug8 16 ..thS
'ug7 17 ttJg4 'fie7 18 'fid2 ±. The h6-
pawn is under attack, and Black reacted
naturally to this with 18 .. J:tgS,
attacking the bishop on hS, but was
met by the blow 19 l::txe6! 'it'xe6 20
'ue1 in Dietze-SchOn, Bundesliga
198617.
c) 1l.....tg7 12 a4 b4 13 ttJe4 'fIe7
140-00-0 IS f4 ':d8 16 ..txc4 f5 17
ttJcS ':d6 18 'ii'b3 ~h7 19 ':ae1 with
strong pressure, Moskalenko-Shabalov,
USSR 1988.
d) 1l...h3 12 ..thS! (Black has to be
very careful when and where to open
the g-file; in this case it only helps
White's attack) 12 ... hxg2 13 ,Ug1 'uh7
14 ..to ..tb7 IS ttJxbS ..tb4+ 16 ~e2
'ii'e7 17 ':xg2 ~f8 18 'it'c2 'uh8 19
'it'e4 with a substantial advantage to
White, Ivanisevic-N.Pedersen, Zagan
jr Wch 1997.
e) 11.. . ..tb7 12..tO a6 13 0-0 (13
a4 ttJd7 14 ttJxd7 rJi>xd7 transposes to
Line C2) 13 ... ttJd7 14 ..txc6 ..txc6 IS
ttJxc6 ..td6 16 f4 'it'fS 17 'flo ttJf6 18
a4 with a slight advantage to White,
Fiister-Egri, Hungary 1945.
12 ttJxc6
The only critical approach. Continuing
in sacrificial style with 120-0
ttJxeS 13 dxeS 'fixeS 14 ..tf3 ..tb7 IS
'ue1 is dubious since Black defends
well with lS ...'fid616 ttJxbS 'ilkxdl17
'uexd 1 cxbS 18 ..txb7 'ub8 19 ..tc6+
~e7, as in the game Ree-Hamann,
Netanya 1968.
12 ....ib7 13 ..tf3 a6! (D)
w
The key element in Black's defence.
The bS-pawn is defended, thereby stabilizing
the queenside. Black can then
continue the completion of his development
with ... J.g7 and ... 0-0, while
ttJe4 by White at any stage can be met
safely by ... 'fIf4 or ... 'fIfS.
14 0-0 J.g7 15 a4 b4 16 ttJe4 'ilkf4
17 'ilkc1 'fic7
Black only needs to avoid playing
17 ... 'fIxc1? 18 ttJd6+ ~f8 19 'uaxc1
..txc6 20 ..txc6 'ua7 21 'uxc4 ±.
18 'it'xc4 ..txc6 19 ':ac1 ':c8!
Simple and strong. 19 ... 0-020 'fIxc6
'ilkxc6 21 'uxc6 (Barlov-Karaklajic,
Yugoslavia 1987) 21...,Ua7 is good
enough for an equal position but nothing
more.
20 'ilkxb4!? ..tf8 21 'fic3

134 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
Alternatively, Karaklajic analyses
21 'ii'el 'ii'b7 22l:f.xc6 'ii'xc6 (22 ... l:f.xc6
is risky due to 23 d5) 23 lDf6+ lDxf6
24 J-xc6+ l:f.xc6 25 'iVe5, but Black
seems to be doing quite well with
25 ... J-e7 26 d5 exd5 27 l:f.el l:f.e628
'iVb8+ J-d8 29 l:f.xe6+ fxe6 30 'iVc8
as! 31 'iV xe6+ f8, when the rook can
be activated via h7.
21...J-xe4! 22 'iixc7 l:f.xc7 23l:f.xc7
St.xf3 24 gxf3 l:f.g8+ 25 hll:f.g5 26
]:a7 a5 27 :a8+ e7 28 :c1l:f.d5
The endgame is winning for Black
due to White's numerous weaknesses,
while the rook performs a great role in
both defence and attack, Kravtsov­
Se.lvanov, Russian Cht 1999.
C)
11 a4 (D)
B
We have learned, by examining the
two previous main lines, that Black
can defend rather easily if he is allowed
to play ... lDd7. With 11 a4
White prevents this since 11...lDd7 is
now met by 12lDxc6 J-b7 13 axb5.
Now we split the variations into
three further main lines:
Cl: 11 ... c5 134
C2: 11 ... J-b7 136
C3: 1l ... h3!? 138
Cl)
11 ... c5
With this rather provocative move,
Black claims that White's previous
move was not really threatening anything.
12lDg4!
Regarded as White's best since
11.. .c5 was launched in the late 1980s.
Deliberately removing the pride and
joy of White's position from e5 is here
justified for various reasons. First of
all, its supporter on d4 is about to be
undermined, but, secondly, and not less
importantly, Black has completely
opened his queenside, and so it is logical
to begin an attack here by first
forcing Black's queen to a less favourable
position. However, the two captures
on b5 should also be investigated:
a) 12 lDxb5? is simply good for
Black: 12 ... cxd4 13 lDc7+ ~d8 14
'iVxd4+ lDd7 150-0-0

WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 135
12 .. :ifxd4? loses on the spot to 13
'it'f3.
13 dxc5 (D)
Black coordinates rather quickly by
fianchettoing his bishops so White
must act quickly. Others have promised
little:
a) 13 axbS .i.b7 14 .i.e2 .i.g7 IS
dxcS 'it'xcs 16.i.f3 'iie7 17 tLle4 .i.dS
::;: Tukmakov-Novikov, Mazatlan rpd
1988.
b) 13 .i.e2 .i.g7 (13 ... b4!? has been
suggested in several sources but I see
no reason to deviate from the text) 14
dxcS (14 .i.f3 cxd4 IS tLlxbS a6 16
.i.xa8 axbS 17 f4! b4! is considered
unclear by Dzhandzhgava and Bokuchava;
if I were to pick a colour it
would be Black) 14 ... b4 IS tLlbS 0-0
160-0, and now rather than 16 ... 'iixcS
17 ':c1 .i.b7 18 ':xc4 'iidS 19 tLle3
'iixd1 20 ':xd1 tLlc6 112-112 Epishin­
Dzhandzhgava, Vilnius 1988, Black
should play 16 ... a6 17 tLld6 tZ:ld7 with
an edge.
B
13 ... .i.b7!
Black would like to play 13 .. :ii'xcS
but White then has 14 'it'f3 'iic6 IS
'it'f6 ':g8 16 axbS. By preventing 'it'f3,
Black is now ready to capture on cS
(tLlf6+ is not as annoying as it looks).
13 ... i.g7, first seen in the game
Moskalenko-Kaidanov, Lvov 1988, is
less accurate, and does not solve all
Black's problems: 14 axbS (14 'it'd6!?
was suggested by Kaidanov and analysed
further by Wells, who thinks that
Black obtains reasonable chances with
14 ... 'iixd6 IS cxd6 b4 16 tLlbS .i.xb2)
14 ... tLld7 IS 'iif3 ':b8 16 c6 tLlb6 17
.i.e2 tLldS 18 .i.xc4! (an improvement
over the Moskalenko-Kaidanov game,
in which White castled) 18 ... tLlxc3 19
bxc3 hS (19 ... fS 20 'iie3! fxg4 21':xa7
'iif6 22 0-0 and White's queens ide
pawns look very menacing) 20 tLle3
(in Delemarre-Van der Poel, Dutch Ch
1995, White scored an easy win with
20 'lWe3 hxg4 21 ':xa7 'it'd6 22 0-0
':hS 23 'iie4 .i.xc3? 24 'iixg4l:i.h8 2S
'iif3 1-0; at any rate White's initiative
is very strong and requires very accurate
defence on Black's part)
20 ... .i.xc3+ 21 ~e2 .i.xa1 22 :'xa1
'iics 23 'iif6 0-0 24 f4!? ':xbS 2S
.i.xbS 'it'xbS+ 26 ~f2 .i.a6 27 .:ta2
and what started as promising queenside
pressure has now turned into good
chances of a successful kingside attack,
Moskalenko-Summerscale, Andorra
1991.
14 axb5
Kaidanov gave the line 14 'it'd4 eS!
IS 'it'xeS 'it'xeS+ 161tJxeS .i.xcs with
an unclear position. Again Wells took

136 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
this a little further: 17 ttJxbS .tb4+ 18
ttJc3 (it is not clear how Black responds
best to 18 ~dl, but presumably
by 18 ... 0-0, with the idea that 19
.txc4 can be met by 19 ... h3 20 l::tg 1
hxg2 21 f3 ttJd7!) 18 ... ttJc6!? 19 ttJxc6
(19 ttJxc4 0-0-0 looks promising for
Black with ... ttJd4 coming) 19 ... .txc6
200-0-0 and then 20 ... .txc3 21 bxc3 h3
22 :'gl .txa4 23 l:!.d4 with a roughly
equal position. If Black wants more
than this, 20 ... l::tg8 21 l:!.gl .tcS looks
worth a try.
14 .... tWxc5 15 l:!.a4 .tg7 16 :'xc4
~e7 17 .te2 0-0 180-0 h3 19 g3 l::td8
The position is approximately balanced,
Vescovi-Matsuura, Sao Paulo
Z 1995.
e2}
1l ... .th712 .te2 (D)
It becomes apparent there is little
logic in other moves as soon as it is noticed
that 12 axbS cS 13 b6 backfires
after 13 ... cxd4 14 'iia4+ ~d8 IS 'iiaS
.td6!? 16 bxa7+ ~e7! - Korchnoi.
12 ... ttJd7!
Was this not the kind of thing White
was trying to prevent with 11 a4? Yet
again Black seems to get away with
this move; if this is true, the whole 9
exf6 system can be put on the shelf.
Just in case, here is a survey of the
other options, which are by no means
less exciting:
a) 12 ... .td6? 13lDe4 .tb4+ 14 ~f1
'iig7 IS .tf3 0-0 16 axbS f6 17 ttJxc4
cxbS 18 ttJcd6 .tdS 19 ttJcs ± Lukacs­
Nemeth, Budapest 1986.
b) 12 ... h3 13 .thS! hxg2 (Black
should probably refrain from this but
then it is hard to see the point of
12 ... h3; nonetheless 13 ... :'h7 14 g3
ttJd7 IS 0-0 0-0-0 16 'iic2 ttJxeS 17
dxeS'iifS 18 'iixfS exfS 19 axbS .tcS
gave Black reasonable counterplay in
Guimaraes-Matsuura, Brazilian Ch
(Rio de Janeiro) 1998) 14 l:!.gl :'h7 IS
.tf3 a6 (or IS ... 'iie7 16 :'xg2 l:!.g7 17
ttJe4 a6 18 ttJcS :'xg2 19 .txg2 .tg7
20 'iig4 ~f8 210-0-0 .tc8 22 f4 with
a fantastic position for White, Wells­
Shabalov, London Lloyds Bank 1994)
16 axbS axbS 17 :'xa8 .txa8 18 'iial
.tb7 19 'iia7 ttJd7 20 ttJxd7 'iixf3 21
ttJeS 1-0 Ikonnikov-Godena, Vienna
1991.
c) 12 ... cS. This seems more to the
point but Black still has to go through
a lot of nerve-wracking defending
mixed with counter-attacking threats
before reaching his goal. We shall
look at:
c1) 13 ttJxbS ttJa6 (13 ... cxd4 14
0.c7+ ~d8 IS 'iixd4+

WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 137
tZ:lc6 17 tZ:lxc6 i.xc6 18l:c 1 e5 19 b4!
gave White an advantage in Piket-Van
der Wiel, Leiden 1986) and now:
cll) 14 i.f3 i.xf3 15 ~xf3 ~xf3
16 gxf3 (Meulders considers 16 tZ:lxf3
superior, but I do not agree that White
should be better) 16 ... cxd4 17 tZ:lxc4
i.c5 18 l:d 1 0-0-0 19 tZ:le5 l:d5! +
Meulders-Van der Wiel, Brussels 1987.
c12) 14 i.h5?! does not have the
same effect as usual: 14 ... cxd4 15
i.xf7+ (15 tZ:lxf7?! i.b4+ followed
by ... 0-0 leaves White embarrassed)
15 ... ~e7 16 ~xd4l:d8 17 ~e3l:d5
18 f4 ~d8! and Black takes over the
initiative as the dark-squared bishop
can now be developed actively along
the f8-a3 diagonal (c5 or b4), Van
Gaalen-Okkes, Dutch Ch (Eindhoven)
1986.
c13) 14 tZ:lg4!? iVf4 (14 ... ~e7!? is
preferable) 150-0 i.e7 16l:cll:g8 17
l:xc4 i.d5 18 l:c3 l::td8 19 g3 ~ g5 20
~c 1 cxd4 21 tZ:lxd4 tZ:lb4 22 l:c7 ±
Bellon-Abreu, Havana 1998. The invasion
of the 7th rank makes ideas
with f4 followed by a sacrifice on e7
very relevant, while Black, with his
badly coordinated pieces, has no interest
in leaving White in complete control
after a queen exchange.
c14) 14 O-O! l:g8 (this pseudoattacking
move is mostly a defensive
move since White was planning 15
i.h5, which, with White safer king's
position, was about to become a real
threat) 15 i.f3 i.xf3 16 tZ:lxf3 cxd4
(Pinter suggests 16 ... h3 17 g3 l:d8!?)
17 l::tcl ! l:c8 18 tZ:lfxd4l:c5 19 f4 tZ:lb4
20 f5 e5 21 iVf3 i.e7 22 tZ:lb3 (22 tZ:le6
fxe6 23 ~a8+ i.d8! 24 tZ:ld6+ ~e7 25
tZ:le4 i.b6!!) 22 ... l:c8 23 tZ:ld2 h3 24 g3
a6, Seirawan-Pinter, Zagreb IZ 1987,
and now 25 tZ:lc3! intending tZ:lde4 is
clearly better for White.
c2) 13 i.h5 (D) and now:
B
c21) 13 ... l:h7 is slightly passive
and leaves White with an advantage
after 14 axb5:
c211) 14 ..:ii'f4 15 tZ:le2! iVg5 16
i.f3 i.xf3 17 gxf3 f6 18 ~c2 cxd4 19
'iVxh7 iVxe5 20 ~f1 and although
Black can continue fighting, the compensation
is not entirely adequate,
Gaprindashvili-Arakhamia, Tskhaltubo
worn Ct 1988.
c212) 14 ... l::tg7!? 15 i.f3l:xg2 16
i.xg2 i.xg2 17l:g1 h3 18 b6 cxd4 19
iVxd4 i.g7 20 f4 ~h4+ 21 iVf2 iVxf2+
22 ~xf2 and White wins, Den Boer­
Kuijf, Netherlands 1989. The immediate
threat is a sacrifice on g2 followed
by b7.
c213) 14 ... h3 15 i.f3 i.xf3 16 gxf3
~d8 17 dxc5 i.xc5 18 ~xd8+ ~xd8

138 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
(Piskov-S.Ivanov, Moscow 1986) 19
liJe4 leads to a distinct advantage for
White.
c22) 13 ... i.g7 (voluntarily giving
up on the defence of f7, but in return
Black will get a few 'free' moves) 14
i.xf7+ ~e7 15 f4. White could also
return the bishop to h5, but it must be
right to try to maintain the outpost on
e5. Now we have:
c221) 15 ... liJc6 16 0-0 liJxe5 17
fxe5 'iWg5 18 d5! 'iVxe5 19 i.xe6 and
White is gradually taking over, Tukmakov-Kuijf,
Wijk aan Zee 1991.
c222) 15 ... l:td8 16 0-0 b4 is interesting
but this is only relevant if
Black wants to play stubbornly for a
win since line 'c223' looks fine for
Black.
c223) 15 ... i.xg2!? was Wells's preference
in The Complete Semi-Slav and
it must have been an awkward surprise
when he was faced with it soon after
his book was released! Wells-Lukacs,
Budapest 1994 now went 16 l:tg1 h3
17 'iWg4 (Wells had published his analysis
this far) 17 ... liJd7! 18 i.xe6 (according
to Lukacs, White can make a
draw with 18 :'xg2! hxg2 19 i.xe6
gl'iV+! 20'iVxg1 'iVh4+21 ~e2i.xe5!
22 dxe5 '1txe6 23 'iVg6+ liJf6! 24 exf6
l:thg8 25 'iWe4+ '1txf6 26 liJd5+ ~f7
27 'iVf5+ but nothing more) 18 ... h5 19
'iWg3 ~xe6 20 l:txg2 hxg2 21 'ii'h3+
'iWf5 22 d5+ ~e7 23 d6+ ~e6 24
'iWxg2 i.xe5 25 'iWd5+ ~f6 0-1.
13liJxd7
I also prefer Black after 13 liJe4
i.b4+ 14 '1tfl 'iWf5 15liJxd7 ~xd7 16
i.f3 '1tc8! 17 b3 :'d8, while Sadler's
13 f4!? is best met by 13 ... b4 14 i.h5
l:th7 15 liJe2 h3!?
13 ... '1txd7 14 i.f3 a6 15 axb5
I don't see why White should want
to exchange many pieces in this line,
so 15 0-0 looks like a better try, intending
liJe4-c5, claiming that the
two-pawn deficit does not mean that
much as long as Black's light-squared
bishop does not participate. However,
Black seems to solve this problem by
playing 15 ... i.g7! 16 axb5 (16 liJe4
'iWxd4 gives White nothing) 16 ... axb5
17liJxb5 :'xal18 'iWxal :'a8 19liJa3
h3.
15 ... axb5 16 lha8 i.xa8 17 'iVaI
i.b7 18 'fJa7 '1tc8 19 0-0
19 liJxb5 i.b4+ is very good for
Black.
19 ... l:tg8 20 i..e4 'iVf4 21 l:te1 f5
Black has a winning advantage,
Bellon-Lu.Perez, Havana Capablanca
mem 1999.
C3)
1l ... h3!? (D)
w

WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 139
Such a doubled pawn is not worth
much in the long run, so why not sacrifice
it to create disturbance in White's
camp? In fact, this has been the most
popular move recently. Compared to
1l....tb7 12 .te2 h3, when 13 .thS! is
strong, White is now deprived of this
possibility. But currently I see no reason
for Black to avoid Line C2.
12 gxh3!?
This is not, of course, very desirable
in the line 1l....tb7 12 .te2 h3.
The main advantage of this somewhat
unaesthetic move is that White is immediately
ready to bring his bishop
out on the hl-a8 diagonal. Here is a
summary of the other options:
a) 12 .te2?! hxg2 13ltgl.td6! 14
.tf3 .txeS IS 4:Je4 'it'f4 16 dxeS 4:Jd7
17 4:Jf6+ 4:Jxf6 18 exf6 .t b 7 19 ax bS
'it'eS+ 20 'it'e2 'it'xbS 21ltxg2 0-0-0 +
P.Cramling-Cu.Hansen, Cap d' Agde
rpd 1996.
b) 12 g3 cS! (D) (12.....ib7?!, hoping
to transpose to Line C2, misses its
goal since White can now advantageously
play 13 J.xh3 cS 140-0). Now
White has several options but none of
them promises much:
bl) 13 f4 J.b7 14ltgl J.g7 IS axbS
cxd4 16 'it'xd4 0-0 was rather unclear
in P.Cramling-Doornbos, French Cht
1999 but I like Black's initiative.
b2) 13 .txh3 cxd4 14 4:Jg4 'it'g7 IS
'it'f3 dxc3 16 'it'xa8 (Black easily defends
after 16 0-0 cxb2 17 ltadl fS!!
18 'it'xa8 'it'b7! -+ Khenkin) 16 ... cxb2
17 ltdl .tb4+ 18 'it>e2 c3 19 'fixb8
0-0. Black is a whole rook down - not
W
counting pawns - but the passed
pawns are almost a guarantee of winning
back the material. Tukmakov­
Khenkin, Iraklion 1992 now continued
20 'it'xbS (20 'it'c7 bxa4! and there
is a further problem to deal with)
20 ... c2 21 'it'xb4 .ta6+ 22 ~e3 (22
'it>f3 fS! 23 4:Je3 'it'b7 +! 24 'ii'xb7
.txb7+ 2S 'it'f4 cxdl'ii' 26 l:i.xdl .te4
winning another rook and the game -
Khenkin) 22 ... ltc8 23ltcl hS 24 'it>d2
'it' gS+ 2S 4:Je3 'it'd8+ 0-1.
b3) 13 4:JxbS cxd4! 14 4:Jc7+ (14
~xd4 J.b4+ IS 'it>dl 0-0 +) 14 ...'it>d8
IS 'it'xd4+ 4:Jd7 16 O-O-O!? (16 4:Jxa8?
J.b4+! 17 'it>e2 'it'xeS+ 18 'it'xeS 4:JxeS,
intending ....tb7, is tremendous for
Black) 16 ... ~xc7 17 'it'xc4+ 4:JcS 18
'it'bS! (compared to the similar line
where ... h3 and g3 have been left out,
White has a much better version here
since Black does not have the saving
...'fif4+ followed by ...'fixa4, but this
does not give him more than a draw)
18 ... ~xeS (18....te7!?) 19 'it'a5+ 'it>b8
20 'fibS+, and since Black cannot play
20 ... J.b7 in view of 21ltd8+ 'it>c7 22

140 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
'iWa5+ ~c6 23 i.bS#, he has to allow a
repetition after 20 ... ~c7 21 'iWa5+.
c) 12 axbS!? has surprisingly, at
least to my knowledge, never been
tried in practice. Then:
c1) 12 ... i.b7 13 'it'a4 is good for
White.
c2) 12 ... cS is not as strong as after
11...i.b7 12 axbS. White plays 13 b6
cxd4 14 'it'xd4, and now since the rook
on a8 is undefended Black must play
14 ... a6, when, for instance, IS ll'le4
looks dangerous.
c3) Therefore Black's best try is
12 ... cxbS 13 ll'lxbS i.b4+ 14 ll'lc3
1:tg8!? but White maintains an advantage
with IS 'it'a4+ ll'ld7 (not lS ... i.d7?
16 'it'xb4 hxg2 17 i.xg2 .:txg2 18ll'le4
'iWe7 19 'iWb7 and White wins) 16 g3
.:tb8 17 i.xc4.
Summing up, 12 axbS!? may well
be the critical move against l1...h3!?
12 ... i.d6
In Ward-Boudre, Paris 1994, Black
soon got into trouble after 12 ... .i.b7 13
%lgl i.d6 14 'iWhS ll'la6? (White still
has to show where his compensation
lies after 14 ... a6, when Black toys with
ideas such as the simplifying ... ll'ld7 or
the undermining ... cS; e.g., IS .:tg3 cS
+) 15 axbS cxbS 16ll'lxbS .i.b4+ 17
~e2 1:tc8 18 .i.g2 .i.xg2 19 1:txa6 i.dS
20.:txa7 with a fantastic attack.
13 'ii'e2
It is worth noting that 13 ll'le4 is
rarely anything since Black can almost
always meet this with a bishop check
on b4.
13 ... .:tgS 140-0-0 ll'ld7!? 15 'ii'e4
i.b7 (D)
16 ll'lxb5 cxb5 17 'ii'xb7 1:tdS IS
.i.e2 bxa4!?
This kind of capture can rarely be
recommended since exchanging the
c4-pawn for White's a-pawn mostly
suits White. However, in this particular
situation, Black is able to launch a
counter-attack, forcing White into a
worse endgame.
19l1'lxc4 'ii'f4+ 20 ~bl a3! 21 'ii'c6
~e7 22 'ii'xd6+ 'ii'xd6 23ll'lxd6 ~xd6
24 bxa3 .:tbS+ 25 ~a2 ll'lb6
Despite being a pawn down, Black
has a clear advantage, Parker-Hector,
Copenhagen 1996. The knight will excel
from dS, serving both as a blockader
and an attacker, while White will
be kept busy defending his hopelessly
weak pawns.

11 7 a4
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlf3 lLlf6 4 lLlc3 e6 5
.i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 a4 (D)
B
7 a4 is usually chosen by practical
players who are looking for something
not too theoretical but at the same time
want an interesting position. 7 a4
serves both purposes. White aims to
disrupt Black's queens ide while keeping
the 'threat' of e5 in the reserve.
Quick Summary
7 ... b4 (Line A) is a relatively new attempt.
After 8 lLlbl .i.a6 9 'ii'c1 c3 10
bxc3 .i.xfl 11 ~xfl lLlbd7 Black has
had good results in a few recent
games. If White does not find an improvement
here, this looks like the
easiest path for Black against 7 a4.
7 ... .i.b7 (Line B) is generally regarded
as the safest approach for Black
and usually leads to approximately
equal positions following 8 axb5 cxb5
9 lLlxb5 .i.xe4, while the other two options
for Black, 7 ... .i.b4 (Line C) and
7 ... 'tWb6!? (Line D), lead to much
sharper play. I have always thought
White to be much better in the line
7 ... i.b4 8 e5 h6 9 exf6 hxg5 10 fxg7
.l::.g8 11 h4!, but this might not be that
clear. The safest is 11...g4 (although
11...gxh4 is not that clear either),
when 12 lLle5 f5 13 h5 ':xg7 14 .i.e2
'tWg5!? seems to be about equal.
7 ... 'tWb6!? leads to messier positions,
with White having to justify his
pawn sacrifice. Here, I find the idea
of the small rook-lift after 8 .i.xf6
gxf6 9 i.e2 a6 10 0-0 ':a7!? interesting.
Black intends to meet 11 d5 with
1l....l::.d7.
The Theory of 7 a4
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlf3 tiJf6 4 lLlc3 e6 5
.i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 a4
Now:
A: 7 ... b4 141
B: 7 ... .i.b7 142
C: 7 ... .i.b4 144
D: 7 ... 'WWb6 147
A)
7 ... b4 (D)

142 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
This has lately grown from a rather
obscure line into something quite playable
for Black.
w
8 ttJbl
8 ttJa2 i.a6 9 eS h6 10 exf6 hxgS
11 fxg7 i.xg7 12 ttJxb4 g4 13 ttJeS
~aS 14 ~d2 i.xeS IS dxeS ~xeS+
and now, rather than 16 i.e2? c3! -+
Guliev-Chilov, Iraklion 1996, White
has to try 16 ~e2, whereupon Black
has at least a draw with 16 ... ~aS 17
~d2 'ii'eS+, while the more ambitious
player might want to try 17 .. J~hS!?
8 ... i.a6 9 'ii'c1 c3
Mikhalchishin's 9 ... i.e7 10 i.xf6
i.xf6 11 i.xc4 cS does not look convincing
after the simple response 12
dxcS!.
10 bxc3 i.xfi 11 'it>xfi ttJbd7
11...h6 12 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 13 ttJbd2
bxc3 14 'ii'xc3 as (14 ... cS IS eS cxd4
16 ttJxd4 ~d8 17 ttJbS! ±) and now IS
ttcl i.b4 16 'ii'd3 0-0 17 ttJb3 ttd8 18
eS ~e7 19 g3 ~d7 20 ~c4 'ii'dS 21
'it>g2 ttJd7 led to a roughly equal position
in Mikhalchishin-A.Petrosian,
Lvov 1996, but Mikhalchishin suggests
that IS ttJb3 i.b4 16 'ili'c4 might be an
edge for White.
12 g3 c5 13 'iti'g2 ttc8 14 cxb4 cxb4
15 'ii'b2 h6 16 i.xf6 ttJxf6 17 ttJbd2
i.e7 18 tthcl 0-0 19 ttJe5 ~b6
White enjoys a slight space advantage
in the form of two centre pawns
versus one but Black also has a significant
plus in his passed b-pawn and the
possibility of creating pressure against
the d-pawn. However, for the moment
White can easily blockade the passed
b-pawn with ttJb3, which simultaneously
defends d4.
20 f3 ttfd8
20 ... 'iIi'a6 21 ttJb3 ttxc1?! (this exchange
allows White a free game; it is
better to maintain the control of the c­
file and transpose to the main line with
2l...ttfd8) 22 ttxc1 'ili'xa4 23 ttal 'ili'bS
24 ttxa7 i.d6 2S ttaS 'ili'b7 26 ttJc4
i.e7 27 'ii'a2! gave White an advantage
in Comas Fabrego-Korneev, Linares
1997.
21 ttJb3 'ii'a6 22 'it>f2 i.d6 23 'ili'e2
'ili'xe2+ 24 'it>xe2 i.xe5 25 dxe5 ttJd7
Black has an edge, Dizdar-Sveshnikov,
Bled 1998.
B)
7 ... i.b7 (D)
This is generally regarded as the
safest of Black's four main approaches,
and commonly leads to more open positions.
8 axb5
8 eS is a fairly interesting alternative
but probably inferior to the text.

7 a4 143
w
After the forced 8 ... h6 White has two
options:
a) 9 i.h4 gS 10 exf6 gxh4 and
now:
a1) 11 i.e2 cS!? 12 dxcS ltJd7 13
c6 i.xc6 14 ltJd4 i.xg2 IS .:tg1
(Dokhoian-Kuijf, Wijk aan Zee 1989)
lS ... h3!? 16ltJxe6 'iWxf6 17ltJc7+ (17
ltJd5 i.b4+) 17 .. .'~d8 18ltJ7d5! 'iWeS!?
(18 ... 'iWd619 'iWd4) 19 f4 'iWd6 20 i.f3!
'iWe6+ 21 ~d2 b4 22ltJbS is unclear­
Dokhoian.
a2) 11 axbS cxbS 12ltJxbS i.b4+
l3lZJc3, Ki.Georgiev-Nogueiras, Sarajevo
1985, and now after the accurate
13 ... 0-0! 14 i.xc4 'iWxf6, intending
... .:td8, Black has an edge - Nogueiras.
a3) 11 ltJeS ltJd7! (11... 'iW xf6 is
Line C2 of Chapter 10) 12 'iWhS 'iWxf6
13 ltJxd7 (13 axbS ltJxeS 14 dxeS
'iWgS IS 'iWxgS hxgS 16 i.xc4 i.g7 =+=
Kramnik) 13 ... ~xd7 14 axbS cxbS IS
'iWxbS+ i.c6 16 'iWxc4 i.d6 was
slightly better for Black in Van Wely­
Kramnik, Manila OL 1992.
b) 9 i.d2!? ltJdS 10 ltJe4 a6 11 b3
cxb3 12 'iWxb3 ltJd7 13 i.d3 i.e7 14
0-00-0 IS i.b1 (this is more accurate
than IS .:tfe1 'iWb6 16 i.b1 l:.fc8 17
'ikc2 cS!, as in Guliev-Savchenko,
Nikolaev Z 1993; now Black does not
get his rook to c8) IS ... l:.e8 16 'iWc2
ltJf8 17 ltJcs (17 .:tel!?) 17 ... i.xcs 18
dxcS. I would be surprised if White
had more than just reasonable practical
chances for the pawn, but practice
has shown that it is not that easy for
Black to defend:
bl) 18 ... fS (this looks a little too
desperate) 19 exf6 'iWxf6 20 i.a2 .:tad8
21 .:tfe1 eS 22 i.aS! .:td7 23ltJd2 (itis
clear that as long as Black's bishop
does not participate White has excellent
compensation) 23 ... ~h8 (23 ... 'iWg6
is more prudent) 24 i.b1 ltJf4 2S .:ta3
'iWg6 26 'iWxg6ltJ4xg6 27lZJe4 ~ Maksimenko-Pinter,
Bnmsh"j 1995.
b2) 18 ... aS!? 19 axbS cxbS 20 c6
i.c8 21 ..txaS!? .:txaS 22 c7 l:.xa1 23
cxd8'iW .:txd8 24 'iWb2 l:.a8 2S l:.e1 b4
26 ..te4 i.b7 27 h3 l:.ab8 112-112 Pogorelov-Korneev,
Benasque 1996.
8 ... cxb5 9 ltJxb5
If White was not ready to play eS on
the previous move, it appears less logical
to do it here. Nevertheless it is
seen once in a while; e.g., 9 eS h6 10
i.d2ltJe4 11ltJxbS ltJxd2! and then:
a) 12 ltJxd2 ltJc6 13 i.xc4 a6 14
ltJd6+ i.xd6 IS exd6 'iWxd6 =F Bouaziz-Zhu
Chen, Cannes 1997.
b) 12 'iWxd2 i.xf3! 13 gxf3ltJc614
.:tdl 'iWb6 IS i.xc4 i.b4 16 ltJc3
O-O-O! with a good position for Black,
Scherbakov-Novikov, Blagoveshchensk
1988.

144 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
9 ... .i.xe4 10 .i.xc4 .i.b4+ 11 lbc3
(D)
B
Black is slightly better, Hulak­
Piket, Wijk aan Zee 1995.
C)
7 ... .i.b4 (D)
This leads to sharp play but does
not enjoy the best reputation. However,
a few strong players have employed
it recently, which suggests that
it is worth taking a fresh look at it.
w
11 ... lbc6!?
The most ambitious; the alternative
is 11...0-0 120-0 and now:
a) 12 ... .i.b7 13 lbe5!? .i.e7?! 14
'ii'b3 'ii'b6 15 'ii'xb6 axb6 16 l1xa8
.i.xa8 17 l1a1 ± Knaak-Ka.Miiller,
Bundesliga 1998/9.
b) 12 ... .i.xc3 13 bxc3 'ii'c7!? 14
.i.xf6 'ii'xc4 15 lbd2 'ii'c6 16 lbxe4
'ii'xe4 17 ltel 'ii'f5 18 .i.e7 l1c8 19 l1e5
'ii'g6 20 l1g5 'ii'e4 21 .i.f6 g6 22 'ii'a4
a6! 23 ltc5 'ii'b7 24 'ii'b3 'ii'd7 25 c4! ;!;
I.Sokolov-Pinter, Lyons ECC 1994.
12 0-0 .i.xf3 13 .xf3 lbxd4 14
'ii'e3!?
A slight provocation but White
gains nothing from 14 'ii'b7 'ii'b8! 15
ltxa7 O-O! - Piket.
14 .•• lbc2 15 .i.b5+ ~f8 16 .i.xf6
lbxe3
Not, of course, 16 ... gxf6? 17 'ii'h6+
or 16 ... 'ii'xf6 17 'ii'e4.
17 .i.xd8lbxf118 .i.g5 f6 19.i.c1
lbxh2 20 ~xh2 as
8e5
Throwing in an exchange on b5 is
possible but does not appear very logical.
The text-move is clearly the way
forward.
8 ... h6 9 exf6
9 .i.h4 g5 is similar to the main line
but Black benefits from already having
established a pin on the c3-knight:
a) 10 lbxg5 hxg5 11 .i.xg5 'ii'a5
(11...lbbd7 12 exf6 .i.b7 is also well
playable) 12 .i.xf6 .i.xc3+ 13 bxc3
'ii'xc3+ 14 'itte2 'ii'b2+ 15 'ii'd2 'ii'xal
16 'ii'b4 'iWa2+ 17 ~e1 'ii'al+ 18 'itte2
'ii'a2+ 1/2_1/2 Laffler-Haugli, Copenhagen
1988.

7 a4 145
b) 10 exf6 gxh4 11 ~eS cS! 12
'iWhS? (12 'ii'f3!? is stronger; Shirov
then analyses 12 ... cxd4 130-0-0 "ikc7
14 ~xbS 'ii'xeS IS .txc4! with compensation)
12 ... 'ii'xf6 13 0-0-0 a6 =+
Ubilava-Shirov, Daugavpils 1989.
9 ... hxg510 fxg7 ':g8 (D)
w
11 h4!
It is my opinion that Black experiences
the most difficulties after this
dynamic move, but many strong players
prefer the calmer 11 g3 .tb7
(ll...g4!? 12 ~h4 .tb7 13 .tg2 ':xg7
is seriously worth considering) 12
.tg2 with the possibilities:
a) 12 ... cS!? 13 0-0 (13 dxcS "iiixdl+
14 'ittxdl g4 IS ~el .txg2 16 ~xg2
bxa4 17 ':xa4 ~c6 18 ~e3 .l:txg7 19
~xc4 .txcS 20 ~e4 .td4 was roughly
equal in Kantsler-Oll, Uzhgorod 1987)
13 ... g4 14 ~h4 .txg2 IS ~xg2 cxd4
16 ~xbS ~c6 17 'ii'xg4 a6 18 'ii'e4!?
.!:tc8 19 .l:tfdl!? (19 "ikh7 ~d7!, with the
idea that 20 lHdl is met by 20 ... 'iVf6,
looks good for Black), Yusupov-Van
Wely, Groningen 1994, and now Black
should play 19 ... axbS 20 axbS ~e7 21
.!:txd4 "iiib6. White can then try several
ideas. 22 .!:ta8, 22 .!:txc4 and 22 ~e3
are all candidate moves but it is far
from clear that White's attack prevails,
and at best it looks very unclear.
b) 12 ... ~d7 is safer. After 13 0-0,
Black has these options:
bl) 13. .. a6 and then:
bll) 14 ~eS!? 'iVc7 (14... ~xeS IS
dxeS .txc3 16 bxc3 'iVxdl 17 ':fxdl
±) IS axbS cxbS (Kupreichik suggests
IS ... axbS!? as an interesting alternative;
then after 16 ':xa8+ .txa8, 17
~xbS?! cxbS 18 .txa8 ~xeS 19 dxeS
~e7! 20 'ii'f3 'iVxeS gives Black a
good game, but White might try 17
~e4!? or 17 'ii'hS!?) 16 .txb7 'ii'xb7
17 ~xd7 'ir'xd7 18 'ir'f3 ~e7 19 dS
.txc3 20 dxe6 fxe6 21 'ii'xc3 'ii'd3
with approximately equal chances,
Gabriel-Kupreichik, Bad Worishofen
1997.
b12) 14 axbS axbS IS ':xa8 .txa8
16 ~eS ~xeS 17 dxeS .txc3 (not
17 ....!:txg7? 18 ~e4 'iVxd119 ':xdl ±
Khuzman-Oll, Uzhgorod 1987) 18
bxc3 'ii'xdl 19 .!:txdl .tb7 20 ':d6
.!:txg7 21 .txc6+ .txc6 22 ':xc6 with
much the better endgame for White,
Peshina-Baburin, Budapest 1990.
b2) 13 ...l'hg7?! 14 axbS .txc3 IS
bxc6.txc6 16 bxc3 favoured White in
Dydyshko-Ribic, Berlin 1995, which
explains why Black should exchange
on c3 before capturing the g7-pawn.
b3) 13 ....txc3!? 14 bxc3 ':xg7 IS
"ikbl a6 16 ~d2 'ii'c7 17 axbS cxbS 18
.txb7 'ii'xb7 19 ~xc4 'ii'c6 with an

146 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
equal position, Chernin-Kramnik, Villarrobledo
rpd 1998.
1l ... g4
This is the safest approach. It is
generally agreed that White benefits
from the opening of the h-file. Both
11.. .':'xg7 12 hxgS and 11... ttJd7 12
hxgS are certainly good for White, but
things are less clear after 11...gxh4 12
':'xh4 'ir'f6, although when subjected
to close scrutiny, it seems to be in
White's favour:
a) 13 axbS cxbS 14 l:thS .td7 IS
ttJeS .tc6 16 ttJxc6 ttJxc6 17 l:txbS
'ir'xd4 18 fif3 l:tc8 19 l:tdl fixg7 20
':'b7 fieS+ 21 .te2 l:tg7 22 ~f1 l:th7
23 g3 fih8 24 ~gl ttJeS was fine for
Black in Skomorokhin-Belov, USSR
Ch 1987.
b) 13 ~c2!? .tb7 14 ~e4 a6 IS
axbS axbS 16 l:txa8 .txa8 17 ~eS!
fixeS+ 18 ttJxeS l:txg7 19 l:th8+ .tf8
20 ttJe4 and now rather than 20 ... cS,
which gives White the possibility of
21 ttJd6+

7 a4 147
There seems to be no way that
White can really exploit this, so I prefer
to defend the g-pawn. This is just,
after 12 .. .lhg7, to rule out 13 lLlxg4,
whether it be good or bad.
13 hS 1:txg7 14 i.e2 (D)
B
14 .. :iVgS!?
After this it is clear that White must
continue energetically, otherwise the
h-pawn will simply become weak.
Other options for Black look inferior:
a) 14 ... cS?! IS h6l:th7 16 i.xg4!
'iWxd4 17 i.hS+ (17 'iWxd4 cxd4 18
i.f3 dxc3 19 0-0-0 lLld7 20 lLlxd7
i.xd7 21 i.xa8 bxa4 gave Black sufficient
counterplay to draw in Dizdar­
Sulava, Makarska tt 1994) 17 .. /tite7
18 lLlg6+ ct;f6 19 \WcI! i.xc3+ 20
bxc3 'iWe4+ 21 ct;n i.b7, Dokhoian­
Yakovich, Uzhgorod 1987, and now
Dokhoian recommends 22 f3 'iWd3+
23 ct;gl b4, when both 24 'iWel and 24
'iWf4 win on the spot.
b) 14 ... 'iWdS IS 'iWd2! lLld7 16 h6
.%:th7 17 'ii'gS ± Lipman-AI. Karpov,
USSR 1986.
IS'iWd2
Yudasin and all's suggestion, but
Yudasin was willing to play Black's
position later, so he might not think it
to be that much. Other options are:
a) IS axbS cxbS 16 dS?! is a very
direct attempt but not at all convincing.
16 ... i.b7 17 dxe6 i.xg2 18 l:tgl
i.b7 19 i.f3?!, Lautier-Thorsteinsson,
Reykjavik 1988, and now 19 ... 'iWf6!
looks very strong.
b) IS ~n i.b7 (1S ... l:th7!?) 16
axbS i.xc3 17 bxc6 lLlxc6 18 bxc3
lLlxeS 19 dxeS i.dS 20 'ii'a4+ ct;f8 21
i.xc4 'iWd2 with counterplay, Kramnik-Yudasin,
Pamplona 1992/3.
IS ... 'iWxd2+ 16 ct;xd2 i.b7 17 f3!
lLld7 18 h6l:th7 19lLlxd7
19 fxg4 0-0-0 20 'Oitc2 cS!? is more
critical according to Gil but does not
actually look bad for Black.
19 ... ~xd7 20 fxg4 a6 21 gxfS exfS
The position is approximately equal,
Bellon-Gil Capape, Spanish Ch 1993.
White's h-pawn is likely to be exchanged
for Black's f-pawn, when
Black's bishops will make up for the
passed g-pawn.
D)
7 .. :iib6!? (D)
This is Black's sharpest option,
holding on to the extra pawn. While in
my opinion the move is quite playable,
it is noteworthy that few players are
prepared to take on the defensive task
required. The key is not to become
too desperate when White attempts to
break up Black's centre.

148 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
w
8 i.xf6
It must be right to give Black more
weaknesses, although 8 'ikc2 is probably
playable. The game W.Schmidt­
Henley, SurakartalDenpasaar 1983
then continued in Black's favour:
8 ... ~bd7 9 i.e2 a5!? 10 0-0 (Henley
thinks that White can minimize the
disadvantage with 10 axbS cxbS 11
dS!? i.b4 12 0-0 i.b7) 1O ... b4! 11
~dl b3 121i'bl i.a613 ~c3 i.b4 +.
8 ... gxf6 9 i.e2 a6
Or:
a) 9 ... ~d7 10 0-0 (10 dS!? is another
idea) 1O ... i.b4 11 dS i.xc3 12
bxc3 ~cS 13 dxc6 (13 'iVd4? eS 14
~xeS ~b3 IS 'ikxb6 axb6 16 ~xc6
~xal 17 l:hal i.d7 + Slepukhov­
Bronstein, Moscow 1945) 13 ... ~xa4
14 llxa4 bxa4 IS 'iVd6. White can perhaps
claim some compensation since
it is not easy for Black to coordinate,
but HUbner believes that Black is able
to untangle with IS ...'ikd8 16 'iVg3
'iti>f8 17 lld 1 'ike7, although this is still
very unclear.
b) 9 ... i.b7 and then:
b 1) After 10 0-0 Black can try a
number of ideas:
b11) HUbner recommends 1O ... i.b4
(a move that he seems to fancy in several
similar lines) with the intention of
ruling out White's pawn-breaks b3
and dS.
b12) 1O ... a6 transposes to the main
line.
b13) 1O ... ~d7 11 a5!? 'ikc7 12 a6
i.c8 13 dS! i.cs 14 b3 b4 IS ~a4 c3
16 ~xcS ~xcS 17 'ikd4 ~xb3 18
'f:fxf6 :g8 19 :abl gave White the
stronger attack in Lutz-eu.Hansen,
Tilburg rpd 1993.
b2) 10 a5!? 'iVc7 11 dS is Lputian's
proposal, with the continuation 11.. .eS
12 ~h4 ±, but this is hardly best play
from Black. 11...b4 looks more critical,
when White can try the piece sacrifice
12 dxe6 bxc3 13 exf7+ 'ikxf7 14
bxc3 with a rather unclear outcome.
100-0 (D)
B
10 ... :a7!?
Black is already far behind in development
and spending another tempo

7 a4 149
on such a peculiar rook move may
seem like a luxury, but 1O ... l:r.a7!? is
actually not so stupid. The main idea
is that it seeks to discourage 11 d5 in
view of 11 ... l:r.d7, and the simple presence
of a rook on the d-file limits
White's options substantially. The development
of the minor pieces can
wait, for it is often quite handy to have
the bishop defending e6. Also, if everything
goes Black's way, it may
even be possible to play ... c5, and then
develop the knight actively on c6.
Other options:
a) 1O ... ttJd7 11 d5 l:r.b8 12 dxc6
'tixc6 13 axb5 axb5 14 ttJd4 'iVc5 15
b4 cxb3 16 ttJdxb5 i.e7 is unclear according
to Hubner.
b) 1O ... i.b7 and now:
bI) 11 b3 with a further branch:
bll) 1l...b4 12 as 'tic7 13 ttJa4 c3
14 ttJb6 l:r.a7 15 d5 is actually not very
clear. If Black just had time to kick the
knight away from b6 with ... ttJd7 everything
would be in order, but it is not
that easy; in Stone-Nogly, Hamburg
1993 Black failed to find a good defence,
and soon succumbed to the attack:
15 ... e5 16 i.c4 ttJd7 17 ttJh4
ttJxb6 18 d6! 'tixd6 19 i.xf7+! 'it>xf7
20 'tih5+ 'it'g8 21 axb6 lIa8 22 'iVg4+
~f7 23 lIadl 'tic5 24 lId7+ i.e7 25
ttJf5 :the8 26 ttJh6+ and mate next
move.
b12) 11...cxb3 12 'i'xb3 ttJd7 13
d5 ttJc5 (13 ... cxd5 14 exd5 ttJc5 15
'i'b4 ttJd7 16 'i'h4 b4 17 dxe6 fxe6 18
ttJe4 is clearly better for White, Lerner-Kaidanov,
Moscow 1985) 141i'bl
i.e7 15 dxc6 1/2- 1 /2 Zakharevich-Savchenko,
Russian Club Cup (Maikop)
1998. Black would indeed have no
problems after 15 ... i.xc6 16 axb5 axb5
17 l:r.xa8+ i.xa8 18 i.xb5+ 'it>f8.
b2) 11 d5!? (D) and then:
B
b21) 1l...b4?ismuchtoorisky: 12
dxe6 fxe6 (12 ... bxc3 13 exf7+ 'it'xf7
14 i.xc4+ ~e8 15 bxc3 ttJd7 16 l:r.bl
'tic7 17 ttJd4 and White wins -
Hubner) 13 as'tid8 14 'iVxd8+ ~xd8
15 ttJa4 ttJd7 16 i.xc4 ± Lputian­
Odeev, USSR 1985.
b22) 11...i..c5 12 dxe6 fxe6 and
now White has several ways to increase
the pressure:
b221) 13 e5!? ttJd7 14 exf6 0-0-0
and here Lputian-Ribli, Sarajevo 1985
was agreed drawn in this highly unclear
position.
b222) 13 b3 'tid8!? 14'i'cl (White
can hardly count on anything after 14
'iVxd8+ 'it>xd8 15 bxc4 b4 16 ttJbl
ttJd7) 14 ... ttJd7 15 axb5 cxb5 16 bxc4
b4 17 ttJa4 'i'e7 with a roughly balanced
position, but one in which I

150 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
would rather play Black if I should
choose a colour, Ragozin-Szily, Moscow-Budapest
1949. Black has the
more active pieces and it is not clear
what White's plan consists of.
b223) 13 tLlh4!? 'Wd8!? 14 i.hS+
(14 'iVcl is maybe better) 14 ... 'ifi>e7 IS
'iVe2 tLld7 16 eS?! tLlxeS 17 lIadl tLld3
18 tLlfS+ ~d7 19 tLle4 i.e7 =+= Zaid­
Novikov, Lvov 1986.
b23) 1l...tLld7!? 12 tLld4 cS? (the
alternative 12 ... cxdS 13 exdS i.cs is
better) 13 tLlc6 1:.g8 14 i.hS (14 dxe6
'Wxc6 IS exd7+ 'iVxd7 16 'ilt'xd7+ 'ifi>xd7
17 1:.fd 1 + rJi;e7 is probably not much
for White) 14 ... i.xc6 IS dxe6! (better
than IS dxc6) IS ... tLleS 16 axbS i.xbS
17 'WdS! (17 i.xf7+ tLlxf7 18 exf7+
rJi;xf7 and now 19 tLlxbSlId8 20 ~hS+
~g7 21 tLlc3 gives White an edge, but
19 'WdS+ ~e6! 20 ~xa8?! allows a
perpetual check with 20 ... lIxg2+ 21
'iti>xg2 ~g4+ 22 'ifi>hl 'iVf3+) 17 ... lIa7
18 tLlxbS ~xbS 19lIfdi with a winning
attack for White, Bellon-Antunes,
Platja d' Aro 1994.
b24) 11...cxdS!? 12 exdS tLld7 13
axbS axbS 14 .l:ha8+ i.xa8 IS b3!? (IS
tLld4 i.cs 16 tLldxbS tLleS 17 b4 i.e7
18 'iti>hl 0-0 19 f4 tLld3 20 i.xd3 cxd3
21 1:.f3 Wh8 22 ~xd3 i.xb4 23 tLla4
'WaS 24lIh3 fS 2S1:txh7+ 112-112 Gorelov-Kishnev,
Barnau11984) IS ... i.b4
16 tLla2 i.cs 17 bxc4 b4 is unclear according
to Hubner.
11 b3!?
11 'i'd2 tLld7 (ll...lId7!? 12 ~f4
i.g7 is worth considering) 12 dS cxdS
13 exdS tLlcs 14 'ilt'e3 lIb7 IS axbS
axbS 16lIa8lIb8 17 lIxb8 'i'xb8 18
tLld4 gave White an initiative in Kelecevi6-Shifrer,
Yugoslavia 1985.
11 ... exb3!
In Lukacs-H6Izl, Budapest 1987,
White was able to create problems for
Black after 11 ... b4 12 as ~d8 13 tLla4
c3 14 tLlb6 tLld7 IS tLlxc8 ~xc8 16
dS!.
12 'iVxb3 tLld7 13 lIfc1
It is also worth considering the immediate
13 dS!? but whether it is
stronger than in the game is not clear.
13 ... lIe7 14lIabl i.e7 15 d5 tLle5
An interesting possibility is here
IS ... b4!?, when after 16 dxe6 fxe6, 17
~xe6 ~aS looks good for Black, but
White can try 17 eS!?, leading to great
complications.
16 'iVdl b4 17li'd4 tLld7
But not 17 ... aS?! 18 d6 eS? 19
tLlxeS!.
18 'iVxb6 tLlxb6 19 a5
In the post-mortem we concluded
that 19 tLla2! would have been better.
19 ... tLla8! 20 tLla4 exd5 21 tLlb6!?
lIxc1 + 22 lIxc1 tLlxb6 23 axb6
Kroll-S.Pedersen, Danish League
1995. Now the continuation 23 ... 'it>d7!
24lIc7+ 'ifi>d6 would have been very
good for Black.

12 Early Deviations (6 e3 and
6 a4)
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 e6 5
.tg5 dxc4 (D)
w
There are a few rarer alternatives
available for White at move 6, namely
6 e3 and 6 a4. I am sure it is possible to
come up with a few more insipid options,
but I will restrict myself in this
chapter to coverage of these two
moves.
Quick Summary
While 6 e3 (Line A) seems to give
Black few problems, there is still some
unexplored territory in 6 a4 (Line B).
In my opinion Black's best option is
6 ... .th4 7 e4 c5!?, where Black actually
plays a Vienna a tempo down, but
White's extra move a4 is not very
helpful. In fact after 8 .txc4 cxd4 9
ttJxd4, Black has 9 ... h6!, which is not
possible in the Vienna in view of
'ita4+. Therefore, it has been more or
less established that White's most accurate
move-order is 9 .tb5+, ruling
out 9 ... ttJbd7!? (after 9 ttJxd4 h6 10
.tb5+, 1O ... ttJbd7 looks good) due to
10 'itxd4!. Hence quite an interesting
position arises after 9 ... ttJc6 10 ttJxd4
.td7 11 0-0 h6, while so far Tisdall's
1O ... 0-0!? remains very unclear.
The Theory of Early
Deviations
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf31Df6 41Dc3 e6 5
.tg5 dxc4
Now:
A: 6 e3 151
B: 6 a4 153
A)
6e3
This clearly lacks the aggression of
6 e4, and although it can actually lead
to quite interesting play, Black has little
to fear. Often White seems to end
up in positions reminiscent of those
covered in the previous chapter, but
with White a tempo down, as he has

152 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
spent two moves advancing the e­
pawn to e4.
6 ... b57 a4 i.b4 (D)
The most common but not necessarily
the best. Here are a few alternatives:
a) 7 ..... b6!? 8 i.e2 (8 i.xf6 gxf6 9
axb5 cxb5 10 b3 is a very direct attempt
to exploit Black's set-up but it
failed in Keck-Maksimenko, Bern
1994: 1O ... i.b4 11 'ii'c2 i.b7 12 bxc4
bxc4 13 i.xc4 tiJd7 14 ~e2 ':c8 15
tiJa4 "d6 and White was already in
trouble) 8 ... a6 9 0-0 i.b7 10 tiJe5
tiJbd7 11 b3 l:td8 12 tiJxd7 l:txd7 13
i.xf6 gxf6 14 bxc4 b4 15 tiJe4 'ii'd8 =
Mantovani-Nemeth, Budapest 1987.
b) 7 ... a6 8 axb5 cxb5 9 i.xf6 gxf6
10 tiJxb5 axb5!? 11 ':xa8 i.b4+ 12
tiJd2 i.b7 transposes to the note to
Black's 8th move.
w
8 tiJd2
White has tried a large number of
other moves here but this move, with
the idea of taking on b5, or simple development,
appears most logical.
8 i.e2 is slower. White intends simply
to complete his development, and
argues that his better control of the
centre is sufficient compensation for
the pawn. Black has then tried:
a) 8 ... h6 9 i.xf6 i.xc3+ 10 bxc3
gxf6 11 0-0 tiJd7 12 tiJd2 'ilic7 13 'ii'bl
a6 14 i.f3 i.b7 15 axb5 cxb5 16
i.xb7 'iixb7 17 tiJxc4 fIIc7 18 tiJaS
0-0 19 l:tc 1 tiJb6 with a roughly equal
position, P.Nikolic-Illescas, Dubai OL
1986.
b) 8 ... tiJbd7 9 0-0 'ii'b6 10 fIIc2
i.b7 11 e4 0-0 12 l:tadl a6 13 e5?!
(this is rarely a good idea in such positions
unless White is able to follow up
with a direct attack) 13 ... tiJd5 14 tiJe4
c5 15 tiJd6 cxd4 16 tiJxd4 tiJxe5 17
tiJxb7 'ii'xb7 18 'ii'e4 i.d6 and White's
compensation is obviously insufficient,
Seul-Dokhoian, Bonn 1993.
c) 8 ... i.b7 9 0-0 a6 10 tiJe5 tiJbd7
11 i.f3 tiJxe5 12 dxe5 'ii'xdI13l:tfxdl
i.xc3 14 axb5 axb5 15 l:txa8+ i.xa8
16 bxc3 tiJd7 + Geller-Sveshnikov,
USSR Ch (Moscow) 1976.
8 ... i.b7
I would very much advise against
an early exchange on c3. White is not
really threatening to take twice on b5
since axb5 can almost always be met
by ... i.xc3. Clearly, White has more
options available after, for example,
8 ... i.xc3?! 9 bxc3 than after 8 ... i.b7 9
axb5 i.xc3 10 bxc3 cxb5, as in the latter
case Black benefits from the a8-hl
diagonal being open. 8 ... a6 is, however,
also possible, and sometimes
transposes to the main line, e.g. after 9

EARLY DEVIATIONS (6 e3 AND 6 a4) 153
J.e2. However, critical is 9 axb5 cxb5
(9 ... J.xc3 10 bxc3 cxb5 11 'it'f3 'it'd5
12 'it'g3 ltJbd7 13 J.e2 gives White B
excellent compensation according to
Korchnoi but 12 ... ltJbd7 is hardly the
best move) 10 ltJxb5 axb5 11 ':'xa8
J.b7 12 J.xf6 gxf6 13 ':'al e5!? 14 'it'h5
ltJc6 15 l:1dl, Koerholz-Karsa, Luxembourg
1986, and now 15 ... exd4! 16
'it'xb5 dxe3 17 fxe3 'it'e7 would have
given Black good attacking prospects
- Karsa.
9J.e2
9 axb5 J.xc3 10 bxc3 cxb5 11 'it'bl
'it'b6 12 J.xf6 gxf6 13 ltJe4 ltJd7 +=
Blees-Lukacs, Budapest 1990.
9 ... ltJbd7 10 0-0 'it'b6 11 J.f3 0-0
12 'it'c2 a6 13 l:1adl l:1fe8 14 ltJde4
J.e71SltJxf6+ ltJxf616 l:1d2 l:1ac817
l:1fdl h6 18 J.h4 J.a8!?
White hardly has enough for the
pawn, but he eventually managed to
draw in Gausel-Bryson, Novi Sad OL
1990.
B)
6 a4 J.b4 7 e4 (D)
7 e3 transposes to Line A.
7 ... cS!?
Note that this position is actually
identical to the Vienna Variation of the
Queen's Gambit (1 d4 d5 2 c4 e6 3
ltJc31tJf6 41tJf3 dxc4 5 e4 J.b4 6 i.g5
c5) but with the difference that White
has got the move a4 for free. Here
Black argues that a4 is not very helpful
for White, and actually gives Black an
option that is not available in the Vienna.
I will return to what exactly this
option consists of, but first a few
words on the alternatives. The point of
playing a4 at move 6 is that White entices
Black to playa marginally inferior
line of the 7 a4 variation, i.e. if
Black in this position plays 7 ... b5, we
have reached Line C of Chapter 11.
7 ... J.xc3+ 8 bxc3 'it'a5 9 e5 ltJe4 is
also possible, with two continuations
for White:
a) 10 l:1cl 'it'd5 11 J.e3 c5 12 J.e2
ltJc6 13 0-00-0 14 'it'c2 cxd4 15 cxd4
c3 16 i.d3 ltJb4 17 J.xe4 ltJxc2 18
i.xd5 ltJxe3 19 fxe3 exd5 20 ':'xc3
J.d7 21 ':'c7 J.xa4 22 ':'xb7 J.c6 23
l:1c7 i.b5 with a roughly equal endgame,
Petursson-Kuijf, Wijk aan Zee
1990.
b) 10 J.d2 c5 !? (this appears better
than 10 ... 'it'd5 11 a5!, when White has
chances of a small edge) 11 J.xc4
cxd4 12 cxd41tJxd2 13ltJxd21tJc6 14
J.b5 0-015 J.xc6 bxc6 160-0 'it'd5 =
Lputian-Kaidanov, Lucerne W cht 1993.
8 i.xc4
8 e5 cxd4 (I remember during a
game of mine, pondering over 8 ... h6!?

154 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
9 exf6 hxg5 10 fxg7 lIg8, which I felt
should also be quite comfortable for
Black) 9 exf6 gxf6 10 i.h4 tDc6 11
tDxd4 tDxd4 12 i.xc4 ~e7 13 'ii'd2
tDf5 14 i.xf6+! ~xf6 15 tDe4+ ~g7
(it should not come as a surprise that
Fritz's first suggestion is 15 ... ~e5,
but 16 'ii'xb4 ~e4 17 lIdl tDd4 18 'ii'c3
e5 19 f4looks terribly dangerous) 16
'ii'xb4 'fid4 17 tDg3 'ii'e5+ 18 i.e2
l:td8 is roughly level, Lin Weiguo­
Kaidanov, Lucerne Wcht 1993.
8 ... cxd4 (D)
w
a1) 1O ... tDxe4 11 0-0 tDd6 (after
1l...tDf6, 12 'fif3 0-0 13 l:tad1 'fie7 14
l:tfe1 tDc6 was fine for Black in Bronstein-Botvinnik,
Moscow Wch (24)
1951, but White should play more aggressively
with 12 tDdb5!) 12 i.a2 0-0
13 'fif3 'fie7 14 l:tfd1 ~h8 15 tDc2
i.xc3 16 bxc3 tDf5 17 i.c 1 l:te8 18
i.a3 'ii'f6 19 tDd4 tDxd4 20 'ii'xf6
tDe2+ 21 ~f1 gxf6 22 ~xe2 tDc6 with
equality, Sergeev-Savchenko, St Petersburg
1993.
a2) 10 ... 0-0 11 f3 'fie7 120-0 tDc6
13 tDxc6 bxc6 14 'fie2 as 15 e5 tDd5
16 tDe4 tDxe3 17 'fixe3 lId8 18 l:tad1
i.a6 = Yermolinsky-Atalik, Hastings
1995.
b) 10 i.b5+ tDbd7!? 11 i.xf6 'fixf6
12 tDde2 a6 13 i.xd7+ i.xd7 140-0
i.c6 15 'fib3 i.d6! 16 lIad 1 lId8 17
~h 1 0-0 18 f4 i.c5 19 'fic4 'fie7 20 h3
l:tc8 =+= Kiselev-Dreev, Helsinki 1992.
9 ... tDc610 tDxd4 (D)
9 i.b5+
This is now considered the most
accurate, since if 9 ... tDbd7, White can
now play 10 'fixd4!.
After 9 tDxd4, 9 ... h6 is the option I
referred to in my discussion of the
similarities to the Vienna. In the Vienna,
White would now be able to play
'fia4+, but with the pawn taking up
that square, White has to respond to
the attack on the bishop:
a) 10 i.e3 leading to a further
branch:
B
lO ... i.d7
I suppose it is still too early to draw
a conclusion from the pawn sacrifice

EARLY DEVIATIONS (6 e3 AND 6 a4) 155
1O ... 0-0!?, but in Stefansson-Tisdall,
Reykjavik Z 1995 Black achieved fine
compensation after 11 tDxc6 (11 i.xc6
bxc6 12 tDxc6 i.xc3+ 13 bxc3 'ilic7)
11...'ilixdl+! 121hdl bxc6 13 i.xc6
:tb8 14 e5?! (Tisdall queries this move
but does not give any improvement)
14 ... tDg4 15 i.f4 i.a5!.
11 0-0
11 tDxc6 bxc6 12 i.d3 h6 (another
idea is 12 ... 'ilia5!?) 13 i.h4 e5 140-0
i.e6 15 'ilie2 i.e7 16 i.c4 i.xc4 17
'ilixc4 was better for White in Slipak­
Kanefsck, Buenos Aires 1998.
11 •.. h6 12 i.e3
Others:
a) 12 i.xf6?! 'ilixf6 13 i.xc6 i.xc6
(13 ... bxc6!?) 14 tDxc6 bxc6 is fine for
Black, Lputian-Akopian, Erevan 1994.
The weakness of the c-pawn is not
very significant as long as Black is
guaranteed counterplay against the
backward b-pawn.
b) 12 i.h4 g5!? (12 ... i.e7 is more
solid) 13 i.g3 i.xc3 14 bxc3 tDxe4 15
i.xc6 i.xc6 16 i.e5 :tg8 17 tDxc6
bxc6 led to unclear play in Levin­
Hector, Berlin 1995.
12 ..• 0-0
Or 12 ... i.xc3 13 bxc3 tDxe4?! 14
'ilig4 tDg5 15 :tadl! and White's initiative
looks well worth the sacrificed
pawn - Tisdall.
13 f3 tDe5 14 tDc2 i.xc3 15 bxc3
(D)
B
15 ... 'ilic7 16 i.d4:tfd8 17 tDe3
eu.Hansen-Tisdall, Reykjavik Z
1995 . Now 17 ... i.c6 is best, with a
roughly equal game.

13 Introduction to the Moscow
Variation
The Moscow Variation arises after the
moves 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tiJf3 tiJf6 4
tiJc3 e6 5 i.g5 h6 (D) and usually
leads to much more peaceful play than
the Botvinnik System.
w
That is when White feels obliged to
capture on f6 and content himself with
a small lead in development and a
space advantage. However, there is an
exception if White chooses to continue
in gambit style with 6 i.h4. Contrary
to the Botvinnik System, this
offers a real gambit since Black can
play 6 ... dxc4 7 e4 g5.
The Anti-Moscow Variation, 6 i.h4,
is, however, becoming very fashionable
these days and is now regarded as
very dangerous, contrary to only a few
years ago, when the line only enjoyed
a reputation as an obscure and slightly
suspicious gambit. Therefore prospective
Moscow Variation players are advised
to study Chapter 14 closely,
because one cannot any longer count
on playing long positional games
where the possession of the bishoppair
is Black's long-term compensation
for handing over to White a space
advantage.
Nevertheless, there are still a lot of
players who do not want to engage in
the tactics of the Anti-Moscow Variation
and instead go for the more standard
positions arising after 6 i.xf6
'iVxf6. However, there is a slight tendency
for White to look for something
other than the well-trodden main lines
of Chapter 15. Indeed, there is still
room for new ideas in the main lines,
but variations such as 7 'iVc2 or 7 e3
tiJd7 8 a3 are gaining in popularity.

14 The Anti-Moscow Variation:
6 Jth4!?
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 liJf3 liJf6 4 liJc3 e6 5
iLg5 h6 6 iLh4!? (D)
B
Building up enough courage to play
S i.gS requires a lot of effort. However,
those who confidently dash out S
i.gS and are primarily looking for
some fun after S ... dxc4, may be in for
a negative surprise after the 'boring'
S ... h6. Is there really nothing better
than to exchange on f6 and settle for a
small lead in development? Black's
position is rock solid then, and it is not
certain that White is able to derive
anything from his temporary advantages.
A long positional struggle is not
really what White is looking for since
the bishop-pair usually provides Black
good long-term chances.
But do not worry. The Anti-Moscow
Variation, 6 i.h4!?, provides just what
White is looking for: complicated play
with White usually enjoying a hefty
initiative. What was not long ago considered
a rather dubious gambit is now
regarded as perhaps the most dangerous
weapon against the Moscow Variation
and is now the preference of
many strong grandmasters. Unlike in
the Botvinnik System, here White is
offering a real gambit. As compensation
he gets a lead in development and
the better pawn-structure. Here is an
example, which features a powerful
idea that helped revive the whole line.
Sakaev - Kobaliya
Russian Ch (St Petersburg) 1998

158 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLA V
Black has weakened his queens ide
with ... b4 in order to grab the e-pawn,
thus isolating White's d-pawn. Black
would indeed be doing quite well if he
were allowed a few 'free' moves.
However, White's lead in development
enables him to launch an immediate
offensive.
12 ttJc5!
There is no real rush to capture the
c-pawn and hence White first activates
his badly placed knight.
12 ... .i.g7
12 ... .i.xcS 13 dxcS ttJbd7 is perhaps
a better defence but I think White
keeps an advantage with 14 .i.d6, intending
'ikd4.
13 .i.xc4 0-0 14 'tli'c2 ttJbd7 15 h4
It is obvious that White has more
than adequate compensation for the
pawn. Now IS ... g4!? could be met by
16 ttJgS! .l:!.e8 17 0-0-0 with a great attack.
The game continuation was no
better:
15 ... gxh4 16 ttJxd7 .i.xd7 17 .l:!.xh4
ttJdS 18 .i.xg7 rlitxg7 19 .l:!.g4+ ~h8 20
'tli'd2 'ir'f6 21 ttJe5 .i.e8 22 0-0-0
White won in a few more moves.
Pawn-breaks
Looking at the pawn-structure in the
following diagram, it is obvious that
Black's structure is more vulnerable
to attack. Typical pawn-breaks from
White include a4, dS and b4, with the
most common being the two latter
moves. Both aim to disrupt Black's
structure and both require extremely
accurate defence from Black. Here is
an example of a rapid black catastrophe:
w
Beliavsky - Bacrat
Albert (2) 1999
10d5!
This is now regarded as the most
dangerous move in this position.
10 ... b4
Although Black has attempted to
improve later in this game I think this
is already too risky. 1O ... cxdS 11 exdS
ttJb6 is probably Black's best try but
as a whole this particular line looks

THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 .i.h4!? 159
very promising for White at the moment.
11 dxe6 bxc3 12 exd7+ 'ilVxd7
12 ... .txd7 has been the attempted
improvement (see the Theory Section).
13 'ii'c2 g4 14 l:tdl 'ii'b7 15 tLle5
'ii'xb2 16 'ii'a4 'ii'b5? 17l:td8+! 1-0
The move e5 is seen once in a
while, usually with the idea of creating
a square for the knight on e4 but
also ...
Opening an entrance for the queen
Sometimes the somewhat anti-positional
e4-e5 serves another purpose,
viz. to open a line for White's queen to
penetrate into Black's position.
W
Lobron - Siobodjan
Nussloch 1996
15 i.xf6! i.xf6 16 e5 .te7 17 'ii'h7
l:tf8 18 .th5
White already has a strong attack,
but thanks to Black's inferior defence
it soon became stronger still ...
18 ... 'ii'd7?! 19 tLle4 'ii'c7 20 tLlc5!
.tc8 21 f4
White went on to win.
Quick Summary
As a whole the Anti-Moscow Variation,
6 .th4!?, looks very promising
for White at the moment. There is no
safe line for Black and each time Black
reinforces his defence, White comes up
with a new idea.
Play generally continues 6 ... dxc4 7
e4 g5 8 .tg3 b5 9 .te2. Then Line A,
9 ... b4?!, can be written off in view of
Sakaev's splendid novelty 12 tLlc5!
(after 10 tLla4 tLlxe4 11 .te5 tLlf6), and
even though his opponent did not defend
optimally, I will not advise for a
repetition.
9 ... .tb4 (Line B) is becoming increasingly
popular and may be where
Black should look for new ideas.
9 ... .tb7 (Line C) and 9 ... tLlbd7 (Line
D) both look risky for Black at the moment,
9 ... .tb7 in view of 10 h4! (Line
C3) 1O ... g4 11 tLle5; and 9 ... tLlbd7,
which is right now very fashionable,
due to 10 d5!.
The Theory of the Anti­
Moscow Variation
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tLlf3 tDf6 4 tLlc3 e6 5
.tg5 h6 6 .th4 (D)
6 ... dxc4 7 e4
The most aggressive and the only
critical continuation. Others:
a) The pre-emptive 7 a4 is best met
by 7 ... .tb4, when 8 e3 transposes to

160 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
B
line 'b', while the game Lammi­
Dokhoian, Helsinki 1992 provided the
entertaining continuation 8 'iWc2 b5 9
.Jtxf6 (if 9 e4 g5 10 .Jtg3 Black can
play safe with 1O ... .Jtb7 or even try the
riskier 10 ... g4!?) 9 ... 'it'xf6!? 10 axb5
cxb5 11 'it'e4 'it'f5! 12 'it'xa8 'it'c2 13
lDd2 'it'xb2 14 .l:.dl.Jtxc3 15 e3 .Jtxd2+
16 .l:.xd2 'iWal + 17 ~e2 0-0 18 'iWxb8 c3
19 .l:.c2 .Jta6 and Black was winning.
b) 7 e3 b5 8 a4.Jtb4 is most likely
better for Black, but it is worth noting
that it is the kind of position that usually
provides White with quite reasonable
practical chances. Sometimes it is
even easier for White to make use of
his extra centre pawn than it is for
Black to get something out of his
rather shaky pawn majority on the
queenside. The following are the most
common options in practice:
bl) 9 axb5 cxb5 10 tDd2 'it'b6?!
(10 ... .Jtxc3 11 bxc3 .Jtb7 transposes
right into 'b43' below) 11 .Jtxf6 gxf6
12 'it'f3 .Jtb7 13 'it'xf6 .l:.h7 14 .Jte2
tDd7 15 'it'h4 .Jte7 16 'iWh5 .Jtxg217
.l:.gl .Jtc6 18 .Jtf3 and White has very
good compensation as Black has great
difficulties finding a safe place for his
king, Lesiege-Fridman, Bermuda 1998.
b2) 9 'it'c2 .Jtb7 10 tDd2 a6 11 .Jte2
tDbd7 120-0 'iWb613 tDf3 0-014 :fdl
nfc8 + Pajeken-Steckner, Hamburg
1992.
b3) 9 tDe5 'it'aS 10 'iWeI 'iWb6 11
i.e2 i.b7 12 0-0 tDbd7 13 f4 a6 14
.Jtf3 0-0 15 tDe4 'it'c7 16 tDxf6+ tDxf6
17 'iWc2 tDd5 18 .Jtxd5 exd5 19 f5 f6
20 tDg6 nfe8 gives Black a clear advantage,
Hillarp Persson-A.Matthiesen,
Copenhagen 1996.
b4) 9 tDd2 is the most common .
White unpins the c3-knight while also
toying with ideas of exchanging on b5
followed 'it'f3. The hope is that Black
may feel obliged to concede his darksquared
bishop quickly in order to prevent
this. Now we have:
b41) 9 ... a61O axb5 .Jtxc3 (1O ... cxb5
is preferable, with an unclear position
after 11 tDxb5 axb5 12 nxa8 .Jtb7, but
the real idea is that 11 'iWf3? :a7 12
'it'g3 fails in view of 12 ... g5 13 'it'xb8
l:lb7 14 'iWe5? .Jtd6 -+) 11 bxc3 cxb5
12 'iWf3 'it'd5 13 e4 'iWh5, Bronstein­
Pachman, Moscow 1967, and now 14
'iWg3! tDbd7 15 .Jte2 'it'g6 16 'iWd6!
'it'xg2 17 .Jtf3 'ii'h3 18 e5 is clearly
better for White.
b42) 9 ... .Jtxc3 10 bxc3 tDbd7 11
axb5 cxb5 12 'iWf3 is good for White
since either the rook must move,
which permits l:ha7, or Black has to
play 12 ... tDb6, when 13 tDe4 illustrates
the danger of Black conceding
the dark-squared bishop.

THE ANTI-MOSCOW VARIATION: 6 Ji.h4!? 161
b43) 9 ... .i.b7 10 axb5 .i.xc3 11
bxc3 cxb5 12 'ii'bl 'ii'b6 (12 ... 'ii'd7 13
.i.xf6 gxf6 14 ltJe4 .i.xe4 15 'ii'xe4
'ii'c6 16 'ii'f4 ltJd7 17 .i.e2 'ii'b6 18 0-0
l:tc8 19l:ta2 a5 20 l:tfal a4 21l:tb 1 provides
White with good compensation
in view of Black's complete mess of
pawns, Dlugy-Romero, Dubai OL
1986) 13 .i.xf6 gxf6 14l:ta2!? .i.c6 15
e4 ltJd7 16 .i.e2 'ii'c7 with an unclear
position, Lesiege-Fontaine, Gonfreville
1999.
7 .•. g5
A more simplistic method of attempting
to solve Black's problems is
7 ... .i.e7. White cannot play the immediate
8 .i.xc4 in view of 8 ... ltJxe4 9
.i.xe7 ltJxc3 10 .i.xd8 ltJxdl, when
Black emerges with a pawn more, so
White has to try 8 e5 ltJd5 9 .i.xe7
'fIixe7 10 .i.xc4 'ii'b4 (if White is allowed
to finish his development without
any interference he will be simply
better because of the weakening of
Black's kingside and the possibility of
a knight settling on d6) 11 'fIib3 (11
.i.xd5 exd5 12 0-0 .i.g4 definitely
causes no problems, Urban-Kuczynski,
Polish Ch (Czestochowa) 1992)
11...a5?! (this semi-active move unnecessarily
weakens the queenside;
Black has better chances of equalizing
after, for example, 11...'ii'xb3 12.i.xb3
ltJxc3 13 bxc3 b6, but with the accurate
14 ltJd2! {14 0-0 .i.a6 15 l:tfel
ltJd7 followed by a well-timed ... c5
break is OK for Black} 14 ... .i.a6 15
ltJe4 ltJd7 16 ltJd6+

162 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
his king survives, but whether it does
is far from clear.
b) 8 .txc4 .txc3+ (8 ... g5 9 i.g3
transposes to the note to Black's Sth
move) 9 bxc3 "a5 10 0-0 lLlxe4 11
tDe5 tDd7 12 "g4 g5 (12 ... tDxe5 13
dxe5 tDg5 14 .txg5 hxg5 15 'ii'xg5 0-0
is also clearly better for White) 13
"xe4 tDxe5 (l3 ... gxh4 14 tDxf7 +-)
14 dxe5 gxh4 15 ':abl h3 (the fact that
Black's king cannot flee to the queenside
just adds to his miserable state;
e.g., 15 ..... c7 16 lIfdl i.d7 17 ':d6
0-0-0 IS i.a6! bxa6 19 'ii'a4 a5 20
"c4 ':dgS 21 'ii'a6+ rJi>dS 22 ':b7 'ii'cs
23 "xa7 +-) 16 ':fdl':gS 17 g3 ':g5
18 f4 and White is already winning,
Kasparov-Korchnoi, Horgen 1995.
8 i.g3 (D)
B
8 ..• b5
Black obviously cannot allow White
to capture the c-pawn so he lashes out
to defend it. However, S ... i.b4 is another
option, though nowadays rarely
played. A reason might be that after 9
"c2 Black can hardly do better than
9 ... b5, which, at best, after 10 i.e2,
transposes to Line B. If White is not
satisfied with this, he can also try 9
i.xc4 tDxe4 100-0, sacrificing a further
pawn for a substantial lead in development.
Then Black has a choice
of three lines, all requiring extremely
alert defence just to survive a miniature
catastrophe:
a) 10 ... i.xc3 11 bxc3 tDd7 (if
Black plays 11...tDxc3, then White
replies 12 'ii'el, intending i.xbS followed
by 'ii'e5) 12 'ii'd3 f5 13 ':ael
tDdf6 14 tDe5 0-015 f3 tDxg3 16 hxg3
rJi>g7 17 lIe2 with excellent compensation
for the pawn, Lputian-Boudre,
Cappelle la Grande 1991.
b) 10 ... tDxc3 11 bxc3 i.xc3 12
lIcl i.a5 (l2 ... i.b4 might be better)
13 tDe5 h5 14 i.e2! h4 15 i.h5 lIh7
16 tDxf7 lIxf7 17 i.xf7+ (17 f4!?)
17 ... c.fi>xf7 IS 'ii'h5+ rJi>fS 19 ':c5 i.d2
20 i.e5 with a winning attack.
c) 10 ... tDxg3 11 fxg3 tDd7 12 'ii'e2
'ii'e7 13 a3 i.d6 14 lIael tDb6 15 tDe4
tDxc4 16 'ii'xc4 0-017 tDe5 f5 IS tDg6
'ii'eS 19 tDxd6 'ii'xg6 20 ':e5 ± Itkis­
Szuhanek, Romanian Ch 1995. White
wins back the pawn with continuing
pressure.
9i.e2
This may actually seem a little slow
at first sight but White needs to bring
more forces into play before initiating
an attack. Moreover, the move is very
flexible, and thus White only decides
where to attack after seeing how Black
intends to develop. Here is a summary
of the alternatives:

THE ANTI-MOSCOW VARIATION: 6 iLh4!? 163
a) 9 tDe5 h5!? 10 f3 (this looks too
slow; 10 h4 seems more in the spirit,
after which Black probably has to play
1O ... g4, since 1O ... b4 11 tDa4 tDxe4 is
way too risky in view of 12 tDxf7!
cJ;xf7 13 'iWf3+ ±) 1O ... h4 11 i.f2 i.b7
12 i.e3 tDfd7 13 tDxd7 tDxd7 14 ~d2
i.e7 (Manninen-L.B.Hansen, Ostersund
Z 1995). White has little to show
for his sacrificed pawn and now played
too passively. According to L.B.Hansen
White should have tried 15 d5!, even
though Black maintains the better
chances with the accurate 15 ... tDe5 16
i.d4 'iWc7! 17 'iWe3 a6!, intending ... c5.
b) 9 h4 (this is very similar to Line
C3, i.e. 9 i.e2 i.b7 10 h4, and might
indeed transpose) 9 ... g4 (9 ... b4!? 10
tDa4 tDxe4 is another idea and should
be compared with the note to Black's
10th move in Line C3) 10 tDe5 (D)
and now:
B
bl) 1O ... b4 11 tDa4 tDxe4 12 i.xc4
tDxg3 13 fxg3 and White is a tempo up
on the note to Black's 11th move in
Line C3, although this might actually
turn out to be to Black's advantage!
The reason is that the bishop might
stand better on c8 than it does on b7
since the e6-pawn is defended. Nevertheless,
I assume this should be much
better for White.
b2) 10 ... h5 and now:
b21) After 11 i.e2, 11...i.b7 transposes
directly to Line C3, but Black
might try ll...b4, when Epishin analyses
12 tDa4 tDxe4 13 0-0 i.g7 14 i.f4
'jj'xh4 15 'jj'c2 g3 16 fxg3 tDxg3 17
i.xg3 'iWxg3 18:0 'iWh4 19 ':'dl i.xe5
20 dxe5 tDd7 with the better game for
Black, but I am far from convinced
that this is best play from White.
b22) 11 f3 I:.g8 12 a4 b4 13 tDe2
gxf3 14 gxf3 i.a6 15 'iWet c3 16 i.f2
'iWa5 17 bxc3 bxc3 18 i.e3 i.b4 and
Black was better in the game Gofshtein-Zso.Polgar,
Tel-Aviv Czerniak
mem 1998.
b3) 1O ... i.b4!? 11 f3 and then:
b31) 1l...i.b7 12 a3 i.a5 13 tDxg4
tDxg4 14 fxg4 c5 15 dxc5 'iWxdl+ 16
cJ;xdl i.xc3 17 bxc3 tDd7 18 i.d6
':'c8 19 a4 tDxc5 is quite comfortable
for Black, Itkis-Dumitrache, Romanian
Ch 1998.
b32) ll...tDh5 12 i.f21Wa5 13 'iWd2
g3 14 i.e3 f6 15 tDg4? (15 tDg6 ':'g8
16 tDf4 is much better, although Black
has good counterplay after 16 ... tDxf4
17 i.xf4 h5 18 ':'h3 c5) 15 ... f5 16 tDe5
f4 17 i.gl i.b7 18 ':'c1 .:tg8 with a
clear advantage for Black, I.Sokolov­
Thorhallsson, Reykjavik 1998.
c) 9 'ii'c2. The main purpose of this
move is to protect the e4-pawn, and

164 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
thus it avoids Black winning it with a
... b4 followed by ... lDxe4 sequence,
but since this is often too risky for
Black, I prefer 9 J.e2.
Nevertheless, it is not unusual in the
main lines for White to adopt a set-up
with the queen on c2 and while I could
have gathered all the 'iVc2 set-ups together
here, I have decided rather to
cover them in later branches where appropriate.
Here, though, are three independent
attempts for Black that do
not fit in elsewhere:
cl) 9 ... g4 (with this Black goes for
another pawn but it looks too risky) 10
lDeS 'iVxd4 11 ':'dl 'ii'b6?! 12 J.e2
hS?! 13 lDg6! (an instructive motif;
White deflects the pawn from f7 and
thus ruins the cover of Black's king
with the aim of following up with eS,
opening an entrance for the queen)
13 ... fxg6 14 eS ~f7 (Black cannot allow
White's queen to capture on g6
with check) IS exf6 eS 16lDe4 J.b4+
17 ~f1':'eS IS a3 J.fS 19 ':'d6! with a
winning attack, Gabriel-Zhu Chen,
Bad Homburg 1995.
c2) 9 ... b4!? 10 lDa4 b3 11 'iVxc4
lDxe4 12lDc3 lDxg3 13 hxg3 bxa2 14
':'xa2 as! with an unclear position,
Bellon-Bator, Stockholm 1999.
c3) 9 ... J.g7!? 100-0-00-0 11 eS
(it is a bit unusual for White to castle
queenside in the Anti-Moscow Variation,
and following up with eS looks
inconsistent; I would prefer 11 h4 g4
12 lDeS) 11...lDdS 12 lDe4 (White's
play seems a little primitive and in the
following it is obvious that the white
king is the more exposed) 12 .. :ii'aS
(threatening ... lDb4!) 13 a3 b414 J.xc4
bxa3 IS bxa3 J.a6 16 ':'d3 J.xc4 17
'ii'xc4lDd7 IslDfd2 cS 19lDxcs ':'fcS
20 lDde4 J.f8, Yurtaev-Shirov, Elista
OL 1995. White's attack never really
got going and hence Black already has
a winning position.
Now we return to 9 J.e2 (D):
B
We shall now consider four main
options for Black:
A: 9 ... b4?! 164
B: 9 ... J.b4!? 167
C: 9 ... J.b7 169
D: 9 ... lDbd7!? 177
9 ... lDhS had a successful outing in
Oll-Liiva, Estonian Cht (Tallinn) 1995
but is not worth repeating. After 10
J.eS ':'gS 11 J.xbS ':'xbS 12lDe5 lDf4
13 lDxc6 'ii'b6 14 lDxbS lDxg2+ IS
~f1 lDf4 White could now have got a
winning position with 16 J.xc4!.
A)
9 ... b4?!

THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 ~h4!? 165
This is an extremely ambitious attempt
but in view of Sakaev's fantastic
12 lLlcS!, it can now more or less be
written off. Since White's knight has
to move, Black will gain the e4-pawn,
and, he hopes, will be able to exchange
off White's dark-squared bishop. But
as we shall see, White will be able to
keep this bishop alive and, just as importantly,
obtain a dangerous initiative.
10 lLla4
This is definitely best. Even though
it is not strictly necessary, White is advised
to move the knight and from a4
it keeps on eye on the cS-square. Others:
a) 10 eS? bxc3 11 exf6 cxb2 12
%:tb1 'iWaS+ 13 cJi>f1 c3 +- Pecorelli
Garcia-Nogueiras, Villa Clara 1998.
b) 10 tiJb1 tiJxe4 11 0-0 i..g7 12
i..eS tiJf6 13 tiJbd2 c3 14 bxc3 bxc3 IS
tiJc4 0-0 16 i..d6 lIe8 17 tiJfeS i..a6!?
18 i..xb8 i..xc4 19 i..xc4 l:txb8 +
Karason-Thorsteinsson, Icelandic Ch
(Akureyri) 1997.
10 ..• tiJxe4 11 .teS!
Unfortunately White does not have
to cooperate! l1...f6? is now too loosening
in view of 12 'iWc2!, so by moving
the bishop and simultaneously
attacking the rook, White gets time to
deal with the e4-knight. An alternative
is 11 i..xc4 but as has been shown,
Black's life is a lot easier without
White's dark-squared bishop. After
11...lLlxg3 12 hxg3 (Timman's suggestion
of instead opening the f-file by
12 fxg3!? remains untested) 12 ... tiJd7
13 0-0 i..g7 14 %:tel 0-0 White seems
to have fairly decent compensation.
Black's pawn-structure is the usual
mess but he still has one pawn more,
and White needs a real target. The c­
pawn is the most obvious, and there
are two ways to begin the pressure
against it:
a) IS l:tc1 is the most logical but,
as pointed out by Timman, this allows
Black to equalize with lS ... tiJb6!? 16
i..b3 tiJxa4 17 i..xa4 i..b7 18 i..xc6
i..xc6 19 %:txc6 'iWdS 20 'iWa4 l:tfd8,
rather than IS ... i..b7 16 i..d3 cS (this
does not look very convincing, but
Black needs to free his position somehow)
17 dxcS i..c6 18 i..e4 'iWc7 19
i..xc6 'iWxc6 20 %:te2!, when Black was
struggling because of White's strong
passed pawn and good control of the
centre in Korchnoi-Timman, Wijk aan
Zee 1997.
b) IS .td3!? anticipates the ... tiJb6
idea and was suggested by Timman afterwards,
with the intention of meeting
lS ... tiJb6 with 16 tiJcS.
11 ... tiJf6 (D)
If this is the big idea of the 9 ... b4?!
line, I am not surprised that White is
able to find a refutation. The logic behind
it is less than impressive. Black
exchanges his c-pawn for White's e­
pawn but also wrecks his own pawnstructure
even more. However, 11.. .:g8
has no bright future either:
a) 12 i..xc4 g4 13 tiJd2 tiJxd2 14
'iWxd2 lLld7 IS i..f4 'iWaS 16 lLlcs tiJxcs
17 dxcS i..xcs 18 :dl i..e7 190-0 ±
Ligterink-Kuijf, Dutch Ch (Hilversum)
1986.

166 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
b) 12 'ii'c2 f5 13 .ixc4 g4 14 .!L)d2
.!L)f6 15 .!L)c5 .!L)d5 16 h3!? gxh3 17
gxh3 with excellent compensation.
White is ready to redeploy the bishop
via e2 to h5, Timoshchenko-Antoshin,
Tashkent 1982.
w
12.!L)c5!
This was probably well-known to
Sakaev a long time before he got the
chance to play it. This was initially an
idea of Kramnik's, and virtually refutes
Black's opening. The only justification
of Black's idea is the hope of
being able to eliminate White's bishop
on e5. There is no real rush to collect
the c4-pawn and hence 12 .!L)c5! prevents
Black's only idea.
Previously, White used to play 12
0-0 (or first 12 .ixc4) 12 ... .!L)bd7 13
.ixc4, when Black has the following
possibilities:
a) 13 ... .ig7 14 'ii'e2 .!L)b6 15 .ib3
0-0 16.!L)c5 appeared very pleasant for
White in the game Relange-G.Georgadze,
Ubeda 1997.
b) 13 ... g4 and now:
b1) 14 .ixf6!? 'ii'xf6 15 .!L)e5 .!L)xe5
(15 ... h5? 16 f4! .!L)xe5 17 fxe5 ± Lputian-Smagin,
USSR Ch (Riga) 1985)
16 dxe5 'ii'xe5 17 'ii'xg4 .td618 g3. I
must say that I am rather suspicious
about this idea, but in Gormally-Ippolito,
Hampstead 1998, White was able
to launch a devastating attack after
18 ... .id7 19ltadl .ie7 20 ltfe1 'ii'a5?
(20 ... 'ii'f6) 21ltxd7! ~xd7 22.ixe6+
~c7 23 'ii'f4+ .id6 24 'ii'xf7+ ~b8 25
.tb3 'ii'c7 26 'ii'c4 ±, but Black can improve
with 18 ... .ib7!; e.g., 19 ltad1
h5 20 'fif3 ltd8 21 lHel 'ii'g5, and although
Black still needs to tread carefully,
he should be able to defend.
b2) 14 .!L)d2 .!L)xe5 15 dxe5 .!L)d7
and now White has a number of continuations,
all of them very dangerous-looking
but none decisive:
b21) 16 f4!? gxf3 17 'ii'xf3 .!L)xe5
18 'ii'a (18 'ii'e4!?) 18 ... .ig7 19 .!L)e4
0-020 ltadl 'ii'e7 21 .ie2 .id7 22 .!L)ac5
.ie8 and Black defends, Neurohr-Beikert,
2nd Bundesliga 1992.
b22) 16 'ii'xg4 .!L)xe5 17 'ii'e4 .!L)xc4
18 .!L)xc4 'ii'd5 19 'fif4?! (19 'ii'c2 is a
better idea, intending, after 19 ... .ia6,
to reply 20 b3 .ixc4 21 l:.ad1 with
compensation - Galliamova) 19 ... .ia6
20 .!L)e5 (here Black is able to meet 20
b3 with 20 ... lId8!) 20 ... 0-0-0 21.!L)xc6
.id6 22 'ii'cl ~d7! 23 .!L)xd8 .ixfl 24
'ii'xflltxd8 and Black is slightly better,
Chiburdanidze-Galliamova, Groningen
worn Ct 1997.
b23) 16 l:.el h5 (16 ... 'ii'a5!?) 17 f4
.!L)b6?! (Lutz suggests 17 ... gxf3 18
.!L)xf3 .ib7 followed by either ... 'ii'a5

THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 i&.h4!? 167
or ... 'ilic7 and ... 0-0-0) 18lLlxb6 'ii'xb6+
19 'ithl J..e7 20 lLle4 J..b7 21 f5 with a
strong attack for White, Savchenko­
Izkuznykb, Russian Club Cup (Maikop)
1998.
Returning to the position after 12
lLlc5! (D):
B
12 ... J..g7?!
The type of position that arises after
this move is clearly in White's favour,
so Black needs to look for an improvement
around here.
a) 12 ... lLlbd7!? 13lLlxd7 J..xd7 14
J..xc4 leads to the same kind of position,
which is better for White.
b) Curiously Sakaev does not examine
12 ... J..xc5!? 13 dxc5 lLlbd7,
which looks more critical. Baburin
says 14 'ii'd6 is unclear, and Black
may actually be able to defend with
14 ... J..b7 15 :tdllDxe5 16 'ilixe5 'ii'e7.
Of course, White has plenty of compensation,
but there is no clear way to
break through. I would prefer 14 J..d6,
intending to centralize the queen on d4.
Both 14 ... 'ilia5 15 'ii'd4 and 14 ... lLle4
15 'ii'd4 lLldf6 16 h4 g4 17 lLle5 look
good for White.
13 J..xc4 0-0
13 ... lLlbd7 14lLlxd7 J..xd7 15 'ii'd3
'fie7 16 J..b3 is clearly better for White
according to Sakaev.
14 ~c2lLlbd7 15 h4 gxh4
This opens lines against his own
king. However, 15 ... g4!? 16lDg5! :te8
17 0-0-0 also gives White a fantastic
attack.
16 lLlxd7 J..xd7 17 :txh4 ±
Sakaev-Kobaliya, Russian Ch (St
Petersburg) 1998.
B)
9 ... J..b4!?
This has for some time been slightly
underestimated (or just neglected) but
has lately been the preference of some
very strong players. In fact Black wins
a pawn unless White plays 10 e5,
which is simply undesirable since it
buries his own bishop while conceding
important central squares.
10 'iic2 (D)
10 0-0 offers the pawn sacrifice under
slightly different circumstances.
1O ... J..xc3 11 bxc3 lLlxe4 and now:
a) 12 'fic2lLlxg3 13 fxg3lDd7 and
now, rather than 14 'ilie4?! 'ilic7 15
lLld2 J..b7 16 J..h5 0-0-017 :txf7 c5!,
when Black had strong counterplay in
Utemov-Mukbametov, Moscow 1990,
White should play 14 lLle5 lLlxe5 15
dxe5, intending J..h5.
b) 12lDe5!? and then:
bl) 12 ... lLlxc3 13 'ilic2 and now
13 ... lLlxe2+ 14 'fixe2 with ideas such

168 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
as IS ':'adl, IS f4 or IS 'ii'hS gives
White good compensation according
to Yusupov, and Black cannot play
13 .. :ii'xd4? in view of 14 .thS 0-0 IS
.l:[ad I! lDxd 1 16 ':'xd 1 'if'b6 17 lDxf7
':'xf7 18 'if'g6+ ':'g7 19 'ii'e8+ 'it'h7 20
.teS and Black cannot prevent mate,
beginning with .tg6+ - Yusupov.
b2) 12 ... lDd713.thS 0-0 14lDxf7!?
':'xf7 IS .txf7+ 'it'xf7 16 'if'c2 lDdf6
17 .teS with some compensation, Yusupov-Akopian,
Ubeda 1997. White
ideally wants to open the f-file; in the
game this was carried out after the preliminary
g4, so as to avoid Black answering
f4 with ... g4.
B
10 •.. g4!?
After this White has to show compensation
for two pawns, and it is clear
that if Black survives the middlegame
he will be in a position to cash in the
full point without much trouble. A
safer option is 1O ... .tb7 11 0-0 lDbd7
12lDeS hS 13 h3 h4 14 .th2 lDhS IS
.txhS .l:[xhS 16 .l:[adl 'if'e7 17 lDxd7
'if'xd7 18 dS!? cxdS 19 exdS .txc3 20
'ii'xc3 i.xdS 21 ':'fel 1/2_ 1 /2 B.LaliC­
Zhu Chen, Ubeda 1998. The oppositecoloured
bishops mean that White has
adequate counterplay for the two-pawn
deficit.
11 tDeS!
This is much stronger than 11 lDd2
'ii'xd4 12 0-0-0 'ii'b6, after which I
doubt that White has enough compensation
since the knight makes a rather
clumsy appearance on d2 and thereby
lessens White's pressure and influence
on the centre substantially. In
Ikonnikov-Prie, St Affrique 1994,
White may have realized that Black
can complete his development without
too much trouble and hence went for
13 .txc4?! bxc4 14lDxc4 and now instead
of 14 ... 'if'a6 Black should play
14 ... 'ii'cS, which Prie thinks is extremely
good for Black; e.g., IslDd6+
'it'e7 16 eS (or 16 a3 .txc3 17lDxc8+
l:txc8 18 .td6+ 'if'xd6 19 .l:[xd6 ..ti>xd6
20 'if'xc3 lDbd7 and Black is about to
consolidate) 16 ... lDdS 17 .th4+ 'itd7
18lDxf7 ':'f8 19lDd6 (19 'ii'h7 ..ti>c7!)
19 ... 'it'c7 20 'if'h7+ lDd7 21lDde4 WaS
+.
11 .. :ii'xd4 12 0-0
12 lDxg4!? is maybe stronger; for
example, 12 ... lDxg4 13 .txg4 lDd7
140-0 (14 .l:[dl Wg7 IS .te2 .tb7 16
0-0 looks more promising for White)
14 ... .tb7 IS .thS?! lDcs 16 .l:[fel
O-O-O! 17 .txf7 'if'f6 18 .thS lDd3
leading to an unclear game, Mellegers-Cifuentes,
Dutch Ch (Enschede)
1998.
12 ... .txc3

THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 ~h4!? 169
12 ... hS?! 13 ':adl 'ii'cs (13 ... 'iWb6!?)
14 ':d8+! ~xd8 IS .!Dxf7+ ~e8 16
.!Dxh8 'iWfB 17 eS gave White a distinct
advantage in Bosboom-Hofman, Wijk
aan Zee 1997.
13 bxc3 'ii'xe4 14 'ii'd2 .!Dbd7 15
':adl
Yusupov claims compensation for
White here, but I am rather uncertain
about this. Black can play IS ... .!DdS 16
.!Dxg4 hS 17 .!De3 h4 18 .i.f3 'ii'g6 19
.i.d6 .i.b7, when White's position does
not impress.
C)
9 ... .i.b7 (D)
W
Now:
Cl: 10 0-0 170
C2: 10 e5 172
C3: 10 h4! 173
Currently, Line C3, an idea from
Khalifman, appears very dangerous.
Moreover, even if Black finds a good
defence against this particular line,
White has a variety of other quite
promising options.
Instead, lO .!DeS is so far relatively
unexplored. Indeed, White does often
move the knight to eS but, on the face
of it, it makes more sense to do so after
provoking ... g4. However, it is not yet
clear how Black should best react:
a) 10 ....!Dbd7!? looks sensible but
nevertheless seems to give White a
good position: 11 h4 (11 'ii'c2 .i.g7!?
12 ':dl 'ii'b6 13 h4 looks rather unclear
but is perhaps quite promising
for White) 11...b4 12.!Dxd7 'ii'xd7 13
..IteS (13 .!Da4 .!Dxe4 14 .i.eS f6 defends
for Black) 13 ... bxc3 (13 ....i.g7
14.!Da4) 14 .i.xf6 cxb2 (l4....i.b4 IS
bxc3 .i.xc3+ 16 ~f1 .i.xal 17 .i.xh8
.i.c3 18 hxgS hxgS 19 .i.f6 'iWd6 20
.i.xc4 ±) IS l:tbl .i.b4+ 16 ~f1 ':g8
17 l:txb2 and White is much better.
b) lO ....i.g7 11 h4.!Dfd7?! (the alternative
11.. ..!Dbd7!? is better, and
similar to 'a' above) 12 .!Dg4! with a
difficult choice for Black:
bl) 12 ...'iWaS? 13 hxgS hxgS 14
l:txh8+ .i.xh8 IS ~f1 .!Da6 16 eS!
0-0-0, Topalov-Timman, Wijk aan Zee
1998, and now plonking the knight in
on d6 with 17 .!De4 and .!Dd6 would
have been very good for White.
b2) 12 ... hS 13 .!De3 g4 14 dS!? is
dangerous.
b3) 12 ... fS!? looks terribly risky
but is not clear if White continues 13
.!DeS; e.g., 13 ....!DxeS 14 .i.xeS .i.xeS
IS dxeS 'iWxdl + 16 ':xdl g4. However,
much stronger is 13 exfS exfS 14
'ii'c2! 0-0 IS hxgS it'xgS 16 ltJe3
.i.xd4 (16.. .f4? 17 .i.h4 and the queen
is trapped) 17 l:th5 ±.

170 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
el)
100-0 (D)
B
This was for a long time White's
main option but is now eclipsed somewhat
by the alternatives. This is not
because it is a bad move, but simply
for the reason that it does not seem that
promising any more. There follows a
rather lengthy survey of the possibilities
(some of them might be irrelevant
for White, but I feel they have to go in
for the sake of thoroughness, and for
the black player who feels courageous
enough to try 9 ... ~b7).
10 ... lDbd7
This is Black's main option and the
most flexible. Others:
a) 10 ... ~e7 11 lDeS lDbd7 12 f4
(when White has castled this makes
more sense than breaking with h4)
12 ... lDxeS 13 fxeSlDh7 14 ~hS 0-0 IS
'ilf3! fS?! (too loosening; better is
IS ... 'ilxd4+ 16 ~hl 'ild7!? 17 ~xf7+
'ifilh8 18 l:ladl 'ilc7 19 'ilhS b4, but 20
lDe2 ~cS 21 ~xe6 looks good for
White) 16 exfS 'ilxd4+ 17 ~f2 'ilxeS
181hel 'ilxfS 19 'ilxfSlhfS 20 l:lxe6
± Kupreichik-Sveshnikov, USSR Ch
(Riga) 1985.
b) 1O ... 'ilb6 will, if White plays 11
'ilc2lDbd7 12 .:tad 1 , transpose to Line
D, note 'd21' to White's 10th move. In
Bosboom-Kruppa, Cappelle la Grande
1998 White instead tried to exploit
the early queen move with 11 l:lbl
lDbd7 12 'ilc2lDhS 13 b3!?, but after
13. .. lDxg3 14 hxg3 g4 ISlDh4 ~g7!
16 bxc4 'ilxd4 17 cxbS cS! Black was
doing well.
c) 1O ... ~b4 11 lDeS!? O-O?! (another
idea is ll...lDbd7!?) 12 ~hS!
lDbd7 13 ~xf7+ lhf7 14lDxf7 ~xf7
IS eS lDdS 16lDxdS cxdS 17 f4 'ifilg7
18 'ilg4lDf8 19 h4 1-0 Pavlovic-Blagojevic,
Yugoslav Ch (Niksic) 1997. I
fully agree that this is very good for
White but it seems rather early to resign.
d) 1O ... a6 and now:
dl) l1lDeS ~g7 (11...lDbd7!? 12
f4 gxf4 13 ~xf4 'ile7!?, Bosboom­
Riemersma, Dutch Ch 1996, and now
White should try 14 lDxd7 lDxd7 IS
dS!?; for example, IS ... 'ilcS+ 16 ~hl
cxdS 17 exdS eS 18 ~g3 b4 19lDe4
'ilxdS 20 ~g4 with an unclear position)
12 f4 0-0 13 fxgS hxgS 14 h4!?
cS IS dxcS 'ilxdl 16 l:laxdl gxh4 17
~xh4 lDxe4 18 lDxe4 ~xe4 19 ~f6
~xf6 20 l:xf6 lDc6 21 lDd7 with a
clear advantage for White, Ikonnikov-Kozirev,
Cheliabinsk 1990.
d2) 11 'ilc2 lDbd7 transposes to
note 'd21' to White's 10th move in
Line D.

THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 iLh4!? 171
d3) 11 eS!? ttJdS 12 ttJd2 ttJd7 13
ttJde4 "b6 14 i.hS! O-O-O?! (the pressure
against the f7-pawn is very awkward
and it is clear that Black must
seek cover for his king on the queenside,
but this turns out to be premature
and should have been prefaced by the
immediate 14 ... cS!?) IS i.xf7 cS 16
ttJxdS exdS (16 ... i.xdS 17 ttJc3 i.b7
18 dS ±) 17 dxcS ttJxcS 18 "g4+ ~b8
19 e6+ ~a7 20 ttJxcS i.xcs 21 i.eS
and White wins material, Malinin­
Evseev, Novgorod 1997.
d4) 11 a4 i.g7?! 12 eS ttJdS 13
ttJe4 i.f8 14 ttJd6+ i.xd6 IS exd6 ttJd7
16 ttJeS ttJxeS 17 dxeS "d7? (17 ... cS)
18 "d4 ':c8?! 19 "cS "d8 20 as hS
21 h3 with a substantial advantage for
White, Poluliakhov-Meister, Kuibyshev
1990.
Returning to the position after
1O ... ttJbd7 (D):
W
11 a4
Otherwise:
a) 11 "c2 transposes to Line D,
note 'd2' to White's 10th move.
b) 11 dS!? is the most direct approach,
the idea being that l1...exdS 12
exd5 ttJxd5 13 ttJxdS cxdS is refuted
by 14 i.xc4! dxc41S ':e1+. However,
Black need not despair as he has an adequate
defence in 11...cxdS 12 exdS
ttJxdS (12 ... a6 13 dxe6 fxe6 14 ttJd4
was very good for White in Ikonnikov-Filipenko,
Cheliabinsk 1990, and
the same applies to 12 ..... b6? 13 dxe6
fxe614 ttJd4, Spassky-Kostrol, Siegen
OL 1970) 13 ttJxbS a6 and now:
bl) 14 ttJd6+ i.xd6 IS i.xd6 "b6
16 i.g3 (16 i.a3? ttJf4 is good for
Black and bears the idea 17 i.xc4
ttJxg2!) 16 ... .:c8 17 ':c1 c3 18 ttJeS
cxb2 19 ':xc8+ i.xc8 20 "c2 0-0 21
ttJc4 'iid4 22 ':b1 ttJc3! 23 ':xb2 ttJe4
and White does not have enough compensation
for the pawn, Bareev-Dreev,
Wijk aan Zee 1995.
b2) 14 ttJbd4!? i.g7 IS i.xc4 0-0
16 ':e 1 ':c8 17 ':c 1 'iib6 18 "d2 ':fe8
= Shirov-Kramnik, Frankfurtrpd 1996.
11 ... h4
11...a6! is perhaps the simplest solution.
Then Scherbakov-M.Gurevich,
Yugoslavia 1996 continued 12 dS
(Scherbakov suggests 12 axbS cxbS 13
dS ttJcS 14 ttJd4) 12 ... cxdS 13 exdS
ttJxdS 14 axbS ttJxc3 IS bxc3 axbS +.
12 e5 ttJh5
12 ... bxc3 13 exf6 cxb2 14 ':bl cS!?
(after 14 ... c3 IS 'iib3 ttJb6! 16 as "dS
17 'ifxc3 ttJa4 18 'ifc2 "xas 19 ttJeS
the position is unclear) IS i.xc4 (IS
i.eS c3!) lS ..... xf6 16 i.eS ttJxeS 17
dxeS 'ifd8 18 i.bS+

172 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
to Flear. Black's king is badly placed
in the centre and White might have
some chances to organize an attack
against the c-pawn, or pressure on the
d-file.
13ll)e4 c5
Now:
a) 14ll)xc5ll)xcS 15 dxc5 'ikdS 16
'ikcl ~a6 gives Black the advantage­
Gelfand.
b) 14 ll)d6+?! ~xd6 IS exd6 is
also inadequate because Black can
eliminate the d6-pawn's supporter with
15 ... ll)xg3 16 hxg3 0-0 (or 16 .. :ilb6
17 dxc5 'iI' xc5 18 .l:i.c1 ~d5 19 ~xc4
~xc4 20 ll)d2 with a level position,
Scherbakov-Galkin, Novgorod 1997)
17 .l:i.c 1 .l:i.c8 18 ~xc4ll)b6 19 ~bS c4 !
20 ll)es 'il'xd6 21 f4 f6! 22ll)xc4ll)xc4
23 ~xc4 ~d5 and Black is better,
Ikonnikov-Pri6, St Affrique 1996.
c) 14ll)fd2ll)xg3 15 fxg3 ~e7 16
ll)d6+ ~xd6 17 exd6 c3 18 bxc3 bxc3
19 ll)c4 0-0 20 .l:i.c 1 f5 21 dxc5 .l:i.c8
with counterplay, Topalov-Gelfand,
Dortmund 1996.
C2)
10 e5 (D)
10 ... ll)h5
After 1O ... ll)d5 11 h4 Black will
have to advance the pawn to g4 but it is
worth considering throwing in ... 'iI'aS
first:
a) 11...g4!? 12 ll)d2 h5 13 ll)de4
ll)d7 140-0 'ikb615 .l:i.bl (1S b3!? 'il'aS
16 'il'c2 b4 17ll)a4 c3 18 a3 bxa3 19
ll)axc3 is rather unclear; obviously,
Black will be better if he survives the
middlegame and keeps the pawn on
a3, but it is very uncertain that he will
do so, since White can almost at any
time bring a knight to d6, and sometimes
opening the f-file with f3 becomes
a feasible option) 15 ... ~b4 16
'ikd2 as 17 f3 gxf3 18 .l:i.xf3 O-O-O! 19
.l:i.xf7 cS with a highly unclear position,
1.Watson-Bhat, Hawaii 1998.
b) l1...'iI'aS 12 .l:i.cl g4 l3ll)d2 c5
(13 ... ll)xc3 14 bxc3 h5 IS ll)e4 ll)d7
16 f3 cS 17 ll)d6+ ~xd6 18 exd6 cxd4
19 'ikxd4 0-0-0 20 fxg4 ~xg2 21 .l:i.gl
~c6 22 a4!? was unclear in Kishnev­
Bykhovsky, USSR 1982 but I prefer
White's initiative) 14ll)ce4! (byavoiding
exchanges White is playing for
maximum activity) 14 ... cxd4 15 0-0
hS 16 a4 a6, Kasparov-Tal, Moscow
IZ 1982, and now Kasparov thinks
highly of 17 ..txc4! bxc4 18 ll)xc4
'ikb4 19 f3!!, opening the f-file and
creating unlimited threats.
11 a4!
Or:
a) 1lll)e4 ~b4+ 12 ~f1 'il'd5! is
better for Black.

THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 iLh4!? 173
b) 11 0-Otlld712 a4 a613 ~hl (13
d5!?, either immediately or after 13
axb5 axb5, is best met by ... tllc5)
13 ... tllg7! (a splendid manoeuvre, repositioning
the knight to f5, from
where it covers the d6-square and is
very difficult to remove) 14 tlle4 tllf5
15 tllfd2 'ii'b6 (and not 15 ... tllxd4? 16
tllxc4 bxc4 17 'ii'xd4 ±) 16 i.h5 "it'xd4
17 "it'g4 and now 17 ... tllc5 18 .l::tael
tlld3 19 ':'e2 i.e7 20 f4! gave White a
promising attack in Piket-Dreev, Groningen
1991, but Dreev suggests instead
the much better 17 ... c5! 18 l':tael
l':th7! 19 f4 0-0-0, with a clear advantage
for Black.
c) 11 tllxg5 tllxg3 12 tllxf7 ~xf7
13 fxg3 ~g8 14 0-0 is similar to
Kramnik's idea below, but here Black
can try to defend with 14 ... tlla6!, bringing
the knight to c7, from where it defends
the e6-pawn.
11 ... a6 12 tllxg5! tllxg3 13 tllxf7
~xf7 14 fxg3 (D)
Throwing in 11 a4 a6 has deprived
Black of the ... tlla6-c7 manoeuvre,
and this fact makes his defence much
harder. Now we have:
a) 14 ... ~e8 intends to escape to the
queenside but is too risky: 15 0-0 ~d7
16 .l:H7+ i.e7 17 i.g4 ~c7 18 i.xe6
l':tf8 19 l':tg7 ~b6 20 d5! ± (Anand).
b) 14 ... tlld7? 15 i.h5+! ~e7 16
"ir'g4! tllb6 17 0-0 ~d7 18 ':'f7+ i.e7
19 tlle4 and White's attack looks too
strong.
c) 14 ... ~g8 15 0-0 tlld7 16 i.g4
(White can force a draw with 16 i.xc4
bxc4 17 "ir'g4+ i.g7 18 "it'xe6+ ~h7
19 "it'f5+ but of course he should go
for the attack) 16 ... 'ii'e7 17 tlle4 l':th7
(Anand convincingly refutes 17 ... c5;
his main line runs 18 tlld6 i.d5 19
i.f3! cxd4 20 i.xd5 exd5 21 "it' g4+
i.g7 22 l':tf7 with a strong attack as
White regains his piece and continues
pressing) 18 tlld6 l':tb8, Kramnik­
Anand, Belgrade 1997, and now according
to Kramnik and Kasparov
White could get a very promising position
with 19 axb5 cxb5 20 tllxb7
l':txb7 21 l':txa6 l':tb6 22 l':txb6 tllxb6 23
l':tf6. The e6-pawn drops and Black
will have a hard time dealing with the
ongoing attack and White's menacing
centre pawns.
C3)
10h4!
This move, which is an idea by
Khalifman, looks more dangerous than
Ivan Sokolov's sister variation 9 h4.
The interpolation, 9 i.e2 from White
and 9 ... i.b7 by Black, actually seems
to favour White since often it comes

174 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
into consideration to sacrifice a piece
either on e6 or on f7. With Black's
bishop on b7 the centre is much more
vulnerable to such actions.
10 ... g4
1O ... b4 is perhaps worth investigating.
To my knowledge it has not been
tried in practice but it is not entirely
clear how White should proceed. 11
tDa4 tDxe4 12 ~e5l:tg8 13 ~xc4 g4
14 tDd2 tDxd2 15 'i'xd2 tDd7 looks
comfortable enough for Black, even if
White interpolates an exchange of the
h-pawns on move 13. White probably
has to venture into 11 hxg5 bxc3 12
gxf6 cxb2 13l:tb1 'i'a5+ 14 ~f1 'i'xa2
15 tDe5, which, though dangerous,
does not look very clear.
11 tDe5 (D)
B
11 ... h5
11...b4? is as usual very risky. 12
tDa4 tDxe4 13 ~xc4 tDxg3 (Black realizes
that he cannot afford to waste
any more moves on non-developing
moves, so he immediately exchanges
White's bishop; he could also have
chosen to defend the g-pawn with
13 ... h5, but 14 'tie2 tDxg3 15 fxg3 is at
any rate extremely dangerous since
White is already threatening to sacrifice
on f7) 14 fxg3 tDd7 15 tDxf7!
(anyway) 15 ... ~xf7 16 'tixg4 'tie7 17
0-0+ ~e8 18 ~xe6 ~c8 19 l:tae1 ~d8,
Khalifman-Dreev, Elista 1998, and
now the simplest is 20 ~f7! 'tid6 21
l:f.e6 'tib8 22 :t.e8+ ~c7 23 ~e6 with a
winning attack. This is one example
confirming my initial remark on 10
h4!? It turned out that the bishop was
prematurely developed to b7 and Black
even had to return the bishop in order
to avoid immediate disaster.
120-0
This is the most common move, and
is often played with the hope of opening
the f-file. Hence the immediate 12
f3!? should not go unnoticed. Black
can react in several ways but only one
(maybe two) looks worth trying:
a) 12 ... b4?! 13 tDa4 gxf3 14 gxf3
is very good for White. The c-pawn
drops and Black lacks counterplay.
b) 12 ... ~b4?! 13 0-0 is also promising
for White since the f-file will be
opened next.
c) 12 ... gxf3 led to a quick victory
for White in Gormally-McDonald,
Hampstead 1998 and was a nice display
of the importance of rapid development:
13 ~xf3 c5?! (Black is
desperate to create counterplay but
this is too weakening) 14 O-O! 'i'xd4+
15 'tixd4 cxd4 16 tDxb5 tDa6 17 tDxc4
:g8 18 ~e5 tDd7 19 ~xd4 ~c6 20
tDxa7 1-0.

THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 il..h4!? 175
d) 12 .. J~g8!? is an interesting idea
that aims, in some lines, to exploit the
undefended bishop on g3. 13 fxg4 (13
i.f4!? lDbd7) 13 ... b4 14lDa4lDxe415
i.f4 hxg4 with a mess.
e) 12 ... i.h6! ? (D) is the first move
Fritz suggests and one that leads to interesting
complications. Since White
has weakened the dark-square complex
around his king it looks very sensible
to attempt to bring in an intruder.
White cannot really castle in view of
... i.e3+, when the d-pawn immediately
falls, so he has to try something
else, e.g.
el) 13 O-O?! i.e3+ 14 ~h2 (14 i.t2
i.xf2+ 15 ltxf2 g3 -+) 14 ... i.xd4 +.
e2) 13 fxg4 b4 14 lDxc4 bxc3 15
lDd6+ ~f8 16 lDxb7 i.d2+ 17 ~f1
'ii'xd4 18 i.d6+ ~g7 19 bxc3 i.xc3
20 'ii'xd4 i.xd4 21 ltdl e5 +.
e3) 13 ltf1 i.e3 (13 ... lth7 is another
idea, intending to meet 14 fxg4
with 14 ... b4, when 15lDxc4?! bxc3 16
lDd6+ 'ii'xd6! 17 i.xd6 i.d2+ 18 ~t2
lDxe4+ 19 ~gllDxd6 20 bxc3 i.e3+
21 ~h2 hxg4 gives Black some play
for the queen, but unfortunately 15 g5
bxc3 16 ltxf6 cxb2 17 ltbl i.g7 18
l:txf7! is very good for White) 14 fxg4
hxg4 (14 ... i.xd4 15 g5 i.xc3+ 16 bxc3
'ii'xdl+ 17 l:txdllDxe4 18lDxf7 ±) 15
lDxf7 ~xf7 16 e5 l:th6 17 i.f4! i.xf4
18 ltxf4lDbd7 is unclear.
12 ... lDbd7
The e5-knight is too powerful to be
left alone, so this is definitely best.
12 ... i.g7 gives White just the time
he needs to generate an attack: 13 f3!
0-0 14 fxg4 (the prophylactic 14 ~h2
comes seriously into consideration;
there is hardly anything better for
Black than 14 ... lDbd7, but then 15
fxg4 tiJxe5 16 dxe5 'ii'xdl 17 ltaxdl
lDxg4+ 18 i.xg4 hxg4 19 ltd7 i.a6 20
ltfd 1 f6 21 exf6 i.xf6 22 e5 i.g7 23
lDe4 is almost forced and 1 would certainly
rather be White in the end; most
of Black's pawns are weak and White's
knight is much superior to either of the
black bishops, not to mention the importance
of White controlling the d­
file) 14 ... hxg4 15 i.xg4 c5?! (Black is
keen to get the central situation clarified
but this merely gives White a
strong passed pawn; 15 ... b4!? is better
but White might still consider the sacrifice
16 lDxf7 ltxf7 17 i.xe6; e.g.,
17 ... bxc3 18 bxc3! followed by i.xf7+
andeS) 16d5! exd5 17 tiJxf7! ltxf718
i.e6 (the pin on the rook is very awkward
and White has the direct threat of
i.xf7+ followed byeS) 18 ... 'ii'e7 19
exd5 lDbd7 20 lDe4 (20 tiJxb5 !? is also
very tempting) 20 ... lDxe4!? (I am not

176 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
sure this is really necessary; at first
glance 20 ... i.xdS!? 21 tOxf6+ tOxf6
22 i.xdS tOxdS 23 'ir'xdS looks very
unpleasant, but it is not clear that White
can exploit the pin; e.g., 23 ... l:taf8 24
.l:.ael 'ii'd8 2S 'ir'e6 i.xb2 26 .l:.e4 'iVd7
27 .l:.g4+ i.g7 28 .l:.xg7+ r1;xg7 29
i.eS+ ~g8 30 'ir'g6+ .l:.g7 31 .l:.xf8+
r1;xf8 32 i.xg7+ 'ii'xg7 33 'i'fS+ results
in a likely draw) 21 .l:.xf7 'iVxf7
22 i.xf7+ ~xf7, Khalifman-Morovic,
Piirnu 1998, and now the simplest
would have been 23 'i'f3+ tOdf6 24
.l:.dl, when White is clearly better in
view of the passed d-pawn.
13 'iVc2 (D)
B
13 ..• tOxe5
The stem game with this variation
continued 13 ... i.g7 14 .l:.adl 'iVb6 IS
tOa4! 'ii'a5? (White only retains a slight
edge after IS ... bxa4 16 tOxc4 'ii'b4 17
eS tOdS 18 a3 'iWb3 19 'iWxb3 axb3 20
tOd6+ ~e7 21 tOxb7 a5 -I.Sokolov)
16 tOcs tOxcs 17 dxcS 'iVb4 18 .l:.d6!
'iVxcS 19 .l:.fd 1 and now there are two
options for Black:
a) 19 ... 'iVb6 and now I.Sokolov
goes on with a lengthy analysis of 20
tOxf7!? but in the end concludes that
20 tOd7 is probably a simpler solution.
For example, 20 ... tOxd7 21 .l:.xd7 i.c8
22 .l:.d8+ 'iWxd8 23 .l:.xd8+ r1;xd8 24
'i'd2+ r1;e8 2S 'iVgS with a strong attack.
b) 19 ... 0-0 20 tOd7! tOxd7 21 .l:.xd7
'iVb6 22 'iVcl!, intending 'iVgS, gave
White a winning attack in I.Sokolov­
Novikov, Antwerp 1997.
I should mention that this game featured
the move-order 9 h4!? g4 10
tOeS hS 11 i.e2 i.b7, etc., but it was
I.Sokolov's idea of 9 h4!? that started
the explosion of interest in this particular
line.
14 .txe5 .l:.g8 15 .l:.adl (D)
Lutz has been advocating centralizing
the other rook, and since White is
not going to open the f-file anyway,
this contains a dose of logic. A line of
his runs ISl:tfdl tOd7 16 i.g3 'iWb6 17
b3 cxb3 18 axb3 .l:.c8?! 19 eS!, which
he assesses as clearly better for White,
and I wholeheartedly agree with this.
White is ready to bring his knight into
e4, from where it may continue its
journey towards f6 or d6. However, it
puzzles me why Lutz gives the clearly
inferior 18 ... .l:.c8 instead of the key
move 18 ... i.b4!, which is well-known
from the main line. The fact that White
has a rook on al rather than fl does not
seem to make much difference.
15 ..• tOd7
Black can also choose the strangelooking
IS ... .l:.g6. It is obvious that

THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 ~h4!? 177
B
this lends support to the f6-knight and
thus Black might be able to use his
queen for other purposes, but to understand
it fully, one has to be aware
of the idea of White exchanging on f6
followed by e5 and 'tWh7. This would,
for instance, occur if Black continues
l5 ... ~e7. Then 16 ~xf6! ~xf6 17 e5
~xh4 18 'iVh7 is very good for White.
In Sakaev-Khenkin, Belgrade 1999,
White met 15 .. .l1g6 with 16 ~f4 ~e7
17 g3!, which seems rather slow but
turns out to be very effective. Now
Black's best would be 17 ... 'iia5 but instead
Khenkin chose the slower 17 ... a6
and ran into difficulties following 18
b3 cxb3 (18 ... b4 19 ttJa4 c3 20 ttJc5
~xc5 21 dxc5 'tWa5 22 ~d6 ttJd7 23 e5
is good for White; he loses the c-pawn
but this does not seem to matter much
as he is ready to double on the d-file
and eventually open the queenside) 19
axb3 ~b4 20 ~d3 'tWxd4 21 ttJa2 e5
22 ~e3 'tWd6 23 ~e2 'tWe7 24 ttJxb4
'iixb4 25 ~c5 'iia5 26 'iib2 and White
had a fantastic position.
16 ~g3 'iib617 b3
This is very logical. Black is obviously
hoping (perhaps naIvely) to hide
his king on the queenside, so White
immediately opens lines. Alternatively,
White could try to bring the knight
into the centre with 17 e5, but this
causes some inconvenience to the
bishop on g3. Hence, 17 ... c5! 18 d5
exd5 19 ttJxd5 ~xd5 20 l:[xd5 'ii'e621
lIfdl ttJb6 22 l:t5d2 ~e7 looks satisfactory
for Black.
17 ... cxb318 axb3 ~b4!
This is a key move in Black's defence.
If Black, for example, plays
18 ... a6 (to prepare ... c5) White can
continue with 19 e5 or even 19 d5!?
Now these thrusts are ruled out since
Black simply exchanges on c3.
19 ttJa2 ~e7 20 ttJc3 ~b4 21 ttJa2
~e7 22 ttJc3
1/2- 1 /2 Notkin-Galkin, Russian Club
Cup (Maikop) 1998. It is very difficult
for either side to improve their position.
D)
9 ... ttJbd7!? (D)
W

178 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
One of the greatest Semi-Slav experts,
Alexei Dreev, has lately preferred
this more flexible move over
the more common 9 ... ~b7 and the increasingly
popular 9 ... ~b4.
lOdS!
White immediately attempts to exploit
his lead in development by utilizing
the fact that Black has lessened his
control of the d5-square. This energetic
continuation requires extremely
accurate play from Black if he wishes
to survive the opening but is of course
double-edged in the sense that if
White's initiative slips then Black will
inevitably come out with very good
chances.
There are several quieter, and less
powerful, continuations:
a) 10 0-0 b4 11 lDa4 lDxe4 12
~xc4 ~g7 13 'it'e2lDxg3 14 fxg3 0-0
15 :tadl ~b7 16 h4 with an unclear
position, Namgilov-Ariskin, Moscow
1999.
b) 10 e5lDd5 11 h4 g4 12liJd2 h5
13 lDde4 ~b7 140-0 a6 15 a4 'it'b6
16 a5 (16 lDg5 c5 17 axb5 axb5 18
:txa8+ ~xa8 19 lDxd5 ~xd5 20 dxc5
~xc5 21 'it'd2 ~d4 + Forster-Dreev,
Elista OL 1998) 16 ... 'it'a7 17 'it'd2,
Se.lvanov-Dreev, Russian Ch 1998,
and now Lutz suggests 17 ... c5 18
lDxd5 ~xd5 19 lDd6+ ~xd6 20 exd6
cxd4 21 'it'g5 f6 22 'it'g6+ 'ifi>d8 23 'it'g7
:te8, when Black is clearly better.
c) 10 h4 is not as dangerous as
against 9 ... ~b7 but does nevertheless
deserve attention. 1O ... b4!? 11 lDa4
(11 hxg5 bxc3 12 gxf6 cxb2 13 11bl
'it'a5+ 14 ~f1 c3 is very good for
Black) ll...lDxe4 12 ~e5 11g8 13
'it'c2!? lDef6 (13... lDxe5 14 dxe5lDc5
15lDxc5 ~xc5 16 hxg5 hxg5 17 ~xc4
with compensation - Mikhalevski) 14
hxg5 hxg5 15 'it'xc4 ~b7 16 lDc5!?
~xc5 17 dxc5 g4 18 ~xf6 'it'xf6 19
lDd2 a5! and Black is doing well,
Mikhalevski-Kaspi, Tel-Aviv 1999.
d) 10 'it'c2 (D) and now:
dl) 10 ... lDh5 11 a4!? lDxg3 12
hxg3 'it'b6 13 d5 g4 14 lDd2lDe5 15
dxc6 b4 16lDdi 'it'xc6 17lDxc4 ~a6
18 l:tc1lDxc4 19 ~xc4 ~xc4 20 'it'xc4
'it'xa4 21lDc3 'it'd7 22lDb5 ± R6tSagov-Karasev,
St Petersburg 1998.
d2) 10 ... ~b7 (it is worth noting
that the following lines can arise from
a number of transpositions) II 0-0 and
then:
d21) 11...a6 12 l:tadl ~e7 (alternatively,
12 ... 'it'b6 13 lDe5 c5 14 d5
~g7 15lDa4! bxa4 16lDxc4 'it'a7 17
dxe60-0 18 exd7 ± Scherbakov-Beshukov,
Krasnoiarsk 1998) 13 lDe5lDxe5
14 ~xe5 :g8 15 ~xf6! ~xf6 16 e5

THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 i4.h4!? 179
i.e7 17 'ilfh7 ':f8 18 i.h5 with a strong
attack, Lobron-Slobodjan, Nussloch
1996.
d22) 11...i.e7 12 l:.adl "b6 13
liJeS hS 14 dS!? cxdS IS exdS h4 16
dxe6 'ili'xe6 17 liJxbS ':c8 18 liJd4
'ili'a6 19 liJxd7 hxg3 20 liJxf6+ i.xf6
with an unclear position, S.Pedersen­
Gausel, Oxford 1998.
d23) 11...liJhS (there is reason to
believe Black should try ... liJhS as
soon as he can get away with it) 12 dS
liJxg3 13 hxg3 i.g7 14 dxe6 fxe6 IS
l:.adl "e7 16liJd4 0-0-0 + Bosboom­
Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee blitz 1999.
Returning to the position after 10
dS (D):
B
lO ... cxd5
Black is far behind in development
and must find a way to get his forces
out before his position collapses. The
text-move attempts to develop the
light-squared bishop conveniently by
removing a possible target for White
on c6. However, now the bS-pawn becomes
weak. Other options:
a) 1O ... exdS 11 exdS b4 12 dxc6
bxc3 is hardly better than 'c' below.
b) 10 ... i.b7 11 dxe6 fxe6 12liJd4
liJcs 13 eS (13 O-O?! is probably too
slow: 13 ..... d7 14 eS 0-0-0 IS exf6
'ili'xd4 16 'iWxd4 ':xd4 17 i.eS ':d2 18
f7 l:th7 19 i.hS l:td7, intending simply
to capture the f7 -pawn, with a good
position, Van Wely-Porper, Antwerp
1998) 13 ... liJdS 140-0 'iWb6 IS i.hS+
~d7 16 'ili'g4 ':h7 17 l:tadl ':d8 18 h4
with excellent attacking prospects for
White, Zhu Chen-Dreev, Shenyang
1999.
c) 1O ... b4 currently appears to be
too risky. 11 dxe6 bxc3 12 exd7+
i.xd7 (12 ..... xd7 turned out disastrously
for Black in Beliavsky-Bacrot,
Albert (2) 1999: 13 "c2 g4 14 l:tdl
'it'b7 ISliJeS 'iWxb2 16 "a4 "bS? 17
':d8+! 1-0; 16 ..... bS is obviously unfortunate
but Black's position is nevertheless
critical) 13 bxc3 liJxe4 and
now:
c1) 14 i.eS f6 IS 'it'c2 i.fS 16liJd4
i.g6 (other moves, such as 16 ... 'iIi'dS
or 16 ... i.h7, are met by 17 i.hS+) 17
i.f3 'it'dS (17 ... fxeS 18 i.xe4 i.xe4 19
'it'xe4 'iWdS 20 "g6+ is clearly better
for White according to Sveshnikov)
18 i.xf6 l:tg8 19 0-0~f7 20 l:tfel ':e8
21 i.d8 g4! + Savchenko-Sveshnikov,
Moscow 1991.
c2) 14 "d4! liJxg3 IS hxg3 l:.g8
16 'ili'xc4 (White has levelled material
and is positionally much better; first
and foremost Black is yet to find a safe
place for his king and secondly his
pawn-structure is worse than White's)

180 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
16 ... ~g7 17 0-0 ~f6 18 l:tabl ~e6 19
'i'xc6+ 'ifi'fS 20 lDd4 ~xd4 21 cxd4
'ifi'g7 22 'i'a4 gives White a clear advantage,
Beliavsky-Atalik, Vrnjacka
Banja 1999.
11 exdS lDb6 12 dxe6 (D)
B
lDd4 ~f6 21 l:tfe1 e5 22lDf3 l:tad8 23
~fl l:tfe8 24lDd2 ± Bareev-Akopian,
Las Vegas FIDE KO Wch 1999.
13lDd4 (D)
13lDxb5 ~b4+ 14 'ifi'fl 'ii'xd1+ 15
l:txd1 0-0 16lDfd4 ~d7 17 ~f3lDfd5
18 ~d6 ~xd6 19lDxd6 l:tfd8 20 lD4f5
~xf5 21 lDxf5 is also very good for
White, Van Wely-Godena, French Cht
1999.
B
12 ... ~xe6
If Black insists on a queenless middlegame
he should exchange queens
here, but this option also does not solve
Black's problems fully: 12 ... 'i'xdl+
13 l:txdl ~xe6 14 ~e5 ~g7 15lDxb5
0-0160-0 (a simple glance at Black's
pawn-structure suggests that he is in
trouble; the question is whether it is
possible to mobilize enough activity
to compensate) 16 ... lDfd5 17 ~xg7
'ifi'xg7 18 lDfd4 a6 19 lDxe6+ fxe6 20
13 ... ~b4
Or 13 ... a6 14 ~f3 l:ta7 15 lDxe6
'i'xdl+ 16 l:txdl fxe6 17 ~e5 ±.
14 0-0 0-0 15 lDcxbS ~dS 16 a4
lDe4 17 as lDxg3 18 hxg3 a6 19 lDc3
~xc3 20 bxc3 lDd7 21lDrs
White has a clear advantage, Beliavsky-Bacrot,
Bugojno 1999.

15 The Main Line: 7 e3 liJd7
8 Jtd3 dxc4
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tiJf3 tiJf6 4 tiJc3 e6 5
i..g5 h6 6 i..xf6 'ii'xf6 7 e3 tiJd7 8
i..d3 dxc4 9 i..xc4 (D)
B
be a profitable deal for White, but the
modern conception is that Black's
long-term chances are by no means
worse, and many strong grandmasters
are today happy playing the black side,
taking a possibly very slightly inferior
middlegame but with a long-term asset
in the form of the bishop-pair.
Slow manoeuvring
To illustrate how the long-term asset
of the bishop-pair can be put into practice,
I will fIrst explain the basic ideas
in the following position:
The Moscow Variation has become
increasingly popular for those not
quite willing to take the risks involved
in the Botvinnik System. However, attention
has to some extent moved
away from the rather dull but strategically
interesting main line, which we
shall consider in this chapter, towards
the much more ambitious Anti-Moscow
Variation (considered in the previous
chapter).
White gives up one of his bishops at
a very early stage of the game, but in
return gains a rather large advantage in
space. Not long ago this was thought to
Black's development of his bishop
to d6 remains the preferred choice of
probably the greatest Semi-Slav expert
of all, Alexei Dreev. With his life-long

182 THE B01VINNIK SEMI-SLAV
experience of this opening he knows
the ins and outs, and he seems to prefer
his dark-squared bishop in the centre
rather than hiding it away on the
kingside. However, the ... eS break is
not that easy to carry out since with
White moving his knight to e4, controlling
the d6-square and placing the
rook on the semi-open c-file, White
can usually meet ... eS with dS. Therefore,
to find suitable places for his
pieces Black will have to engage in
rather slow manoeuvring as illustrated
with arrows in the diagram above.
With the limited space available this
almost seems to cause a traffic-jam,
but it all fits nicely together with one
piece freeing just the square needed
for another all the time. Of course,
Black must be careful not to doze off
and allow White too much space.
B
Savchenko - Kuczynski
Groningen 1992
Here are first a few examples where
White in the first place seems to enjoy
a nice controlled space advantage, but
following Black's patient defensive
manoeuvring, he is gradually pushed
back.
In the diagram above, White has
grabbed as much space as he could,
and soon might be threatening to start
an attack. However, Black's position
is rock-solid and he now seized the
initiative with ...
19 ... f6 20 ltJc4?!
20 ltJf3 is probably better, but even
so 20 ... i.g6 21 'li'f2 :ta8 maintains a
flexible and very solid position.
20 ... i.g6 21 'ii'c3 i.h5 22 :te1:ta8
23ltJc5 :ta7 24 .:tf1 i.f7 25 .:tn b6 26
ltJe4 .:taa8 27 ltJcd2 :ac8 28 b4?
A mistake but it is not easy to suggest
a plan for White. On the other
hand, Black's position seems much
easier to handle, with ideas such as
...i.b8 and ... fS followed by ... cS on
the agenda.
28 ... f5 29 ltJg3 i.d6!
Black has a clear advantage.
White's play in the above example
was far from perfect, although very
natural. It is the kind of position where
Black can easily eject the white knights
from their rather unstable outposts on
eS and cS. A much better strategy for
White, which was initially developed
by Artur Yusupov, is to try to get in the
advance e4-eS, and that means White
has to refrain from playing ltJeS. However,
White must be careful that he advances
e4 in a position where Black is
not able to reply with ... eS. Here is

THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 !i:Jd7 8 i.d3 dxc4 183
how it can be done, and it is also a
good example of what can happen to
Black if he becomes too passive and
plays without a clear plan:
It has been difficult to predict any
of Black's previous three moves, but
they do not seem to do anything particularly
useful for the defence. White
broke through with ...
29 d5 'ii'd8 30 d6
... and went on to win in another 10
moves.
The set-up with a white pawn on eS
occurs more frequently when Black
has decided upon a kingside fianchetto.
Then White also has a nice outpost for
his knight on d6 but he must take care
that his centre does not get undermined
by ... cS.
VVard - Ferguson
Hastings 1995
16 ... ~d7 17lLlc5
This should be played only after
Black has played ... ~d7, thus gaining
a tempo by attacking the b-pawn.
17 ... :'a7 18 e4 ~e8
18 ... eS is now met strongly by 19
lLlxeS ~xeS 20 dxeS1WxeS 211Wb3.
19 e5lLlg6?!
In Sakaev-Dreev, Brno 1992 an
early peace agreement was signed after
19 ... b6 20 lLla4 :'aa8. 20 lLle4 is
clearly more ambitious but Black replies
20 ... a4 with some counterplay.
20'WWe4! ~b6?
This only wastes time. 20 ... b6 was
still the move.
21lLla4 ~c7 22 h4 :'aa8 23 'ii'g4
b6 24 h5 lLlf8 25 lLlc3 ~h8 26 lLle4
i.b8 27 :'e1 :'a7 28 :'e3 :'c8
B
Ivanchuk - Kramnik
Novgorod 1996
White has supported the eS-pawn
with a rook on el. Hence, it is not so
easy for Black to undermine White's
centre with ... cS since White has the
strong reply dS. If Black could get in
... cS without White being able to reply
dS White's centre would be close to

184 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
falling apart, especially if this is supported
with a bishop on b7. Then Black
will be threatening to exchange pawns
and exchange the knight on f3, when
e5 drops. Of course, White should
take measures against this. Usually
this means attempting to exchange the
light-squared bishops and making sure
that ... c5 can be met by d5.
14 ••. b6 15 'it'e2
Further reinforcing the e5-pawn but
also intending to meet 15 ... .ib7 with
16 .ia6!. It would be quite an achievement
if White could exchange the
light-squared bishops under such circumstances,
as this is Black's good
bishop. This will also take some of the
sting out of a possible ... c5 break.
15 ... .:tbS! 16 .id3
If 16 .ia6, Black can safely free his
position with 16 ... c5; e.g., 17 d5 .ixa6
18 'ii'xa6 exd5 19lLlxd5 "e6 20 lLlc7
"c6 21lLlb5 .:ta8! and Black is doing
well.
16 ... .ib7
In Dautov-Fridman, PulaEcht 1997,
Black played the unusual 16 ..... f8!?
The idea is that if Black could have a
move for free then he would be ready
to play ... c5: 17 ... c5 18 d5 .ib7 and
now if Black's queen were on e7
White could play 19 d6 followed by
.ie4, but here 19 d6 is answered by
19 ... .ixf3. The game continued 17 h4
c518d5.ib719h5exd520hxg6,and
now Sadler suggests 20 ... f6!? 21 e6
lLle5 with an unclear position. In fact,
Black has little to fear. His kingside is
relatively safe, and it is not clear how
White takes measures against the intimidating
black centre.
17 .ie4lLlfS 1S g3 ':'bcS 19 a3 .:tc7
20 .:ted1 c5 21 .ixb7 ':'xb7 22lLle4
White has a small advantage, which
he convincingly exploited to win in 40
moves.
Even though White is ready to meet
the ... c5 break with d5, this is not always
enough. Sometimes Black is able
to expand on the queenside and simply
exchange the e-pawn for White's d­
pawn, thus obtaining a three versus two
majority on the queens ide and pressure
against the e5-pawn.
B
Van Wely - Dreev
Wijk aan Zee 1996
13 ... a6!
Black prepares to play ... b5 followed
by ... c5 with no problems at all.
14 a3 b6
This clever move is very typical of
such positions. Black prepares the
... c5 advance slowly, and only when

THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 liJd7 8 i.d3 dxc4 185
he is fully developed will he move his
b-pawn to bS. The immediate 14 ... bS?!
is dubious on account of IS i.a2 cS 16
dxcS!? ltJxcs 17 b4, when White exploits
his lead in development to put
Black under pressure.
15 e4 i.b7 16 e5?!
White is not able to support this
pawn adequately and now it merely
becomes weak. The prophylactic 16
i.a2 is better.
16 ... c5 17 d5 b5 IS i.a2 c4! 19 i.b1
exd5 20 liJxd5 i.xd5 21 .:txd5 .:tfeS
Black is better. White even lost the
eS-pawn without any compensation
whatsoever after ...
22.:te1?!
Dreev gives 22 e6 fxe6 (22 ... ltJb6!?)
23 .:td2 ltJf8 24 'ilVe4 as a better try,
when White has at least created some
weaknesses on Black's kingside as
compensation for the pawn, but by
correct play Black should still win.
22 .•. .:tadS 23 'iWd2 liJxe5 24 ltJxe5
.:txd5 25 'iWxd5 i.xe5
Black won in some 30 more moves.
Central systems
The subheading is borrowed from
Matthew Sadler's book The Semi-Slav
for the simple reason that I could find
no better heading to cover the next examples.
These usually involve Black
replying ... eS to White's e4. A few
snapshots (see/allowing diagram):
1l ... e5! 12 d5 liJb6 13 i.b3 i.g4!
Black should hurry to play this,
even though the following ending is
not very enterprising. However, after
B
Khalifman - Akopian
Erevan 1996
13 ... 0-0 14 h3! White is better as neither
of Black's bishops is very good.
14 h3 i.xf3 15 ..wxf3 ..wxf3 16 gxf3

186 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
22 .l:ac1 a4 23 .i.dl ~d7 24 ~n
.i.h6 25 ~e1

THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 0.ti7 8 j,.d3 dxc4 187
Beliavsky has had this pOSItIon
twice. The first time he preferred 19
tiJbxd4 but did not obtain an advantage.
Also here Black's resources look
fully adequate.
19 ... tiJf6 20 .:tel i.d7 21 l:tae2
i.xbS 22 i.xbS 'iid8 23 i.c6 l:ta7 24
g3 'iid6 2S 'iic4 .:tc8 26 bS tiJdS 27
tiJeS 112_112
B
17 tiJd2 cS 18 dS (D)
B
P.Nikolic - Kramnik
Erevan OL 1996
14 ... aS! IS bxaS
15 b5 c5 is fine for Black, both after
16 d5 llJb6 as well as 16 b6 cxd4 17
exd4 'ti'b4!.
lS ... l:txaS 16 .:tfd1 b6
Black is still suffering slightly for
his lack of space but it is not very severe
since he has counterplay against
the a4-pawn and is now preparing to
play ... c5. White would be better if he
could manage to get his knight around
to c4 before Black plays this but he is a
tempo short for it.
18 ... i.xc3!
An excellent defence. Black can
rarely afford to give up his strong
bishop for the knight like this but here
it is possible (and indeed, virtually essential)
since it increases the pressure
against a4 by removing one of the defenders
and makes it impossible for
White to maintain his pawn on d5.
19 l:txc3 tiJf6 20 dxe6 i.xe6 21
.:tcel
White actually has to avoid a few
tactics. The natural 21 'tWxb6 .:txa4 22
i.xe6 surprisingly loses a piece after
22 ... l:tb4! 23 'ti'xc5 'tWxc5 24 .:txc5
l:txd2!.
21.. . .:ta7 22 i.xe6 'iixe6 112_112
Quick Summary
Most lines lead to strategically interesting
play. 9 ... i.d6 (Line A) is probably
slightly underestimated but only
Alexei Dreev frequently takes on the
task of the patient manoeuvring required
after 10 0-0 'tWe7 11 tiJe4 i.c7

188 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
12 :'cl 0-0 13 'ikc2 :'d8, preparing a
solid set-up with ... lbf8 and ... i.d7 -eS.
The main line, 9 ... g6 (Line B) gives
White a choice of three different strategies
after 10 0-0 i.g7.
Line B 1 (11 :tel) is flexible, enabling
White to play both in the centre
and on the queens ide, while Line B2
(11 e4) is more direct. However, the
endgame after 11...e5 12 d5 lbb6 13
i.b3 i.g4 14 h3 i.xf3 15 'ikxf3 'ikxf3
16 gxf3 ~e7 17 dxc6 bxc6 is nothing
special. White probably has a microscopic
advantage but Black should be
able to defend the position without too
much trouble.
11 b4 (Line B3) is White's best
chance of an advantage but also here
Black's defensive resources are quite
good. The main line runs 11...0-0 12
a4 'ike7 13 :tbl, when 13 ... b6 probably
is the most accurate since 13 ... a5 is
premature in view of 14 b5 c5 15 b6!.
The Theory of the Main
Line Moscow Variation
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lbf3lbf6 4lbc3 e6 5
i.g5 h6 6 i.xf6 'ikxf6 7 e3 lbd7 8
i.d3 dxc4 9 i.xc4
Now:
A: 9 ... i.d6 188
B: 9 ... g6 192
A)
9 •.• i.d6 (D)
If Black is not going to waste another
move preparing to develop,
adopting the hyper-modern approach
9 ... g6, this is the most logical move.
There are other squares available for
the bishop on the a3-f8 diagonal but
on b4 the bishop may be subjected to
attack while on e7 it blocks the queen's
retreat. The bishop also seems to be
better placed on d6 than on g7 following
an e4 e5 sequence, and in general
it is more helpful in the support of an
... e5 break, so the worst problem for
Black in this line is that another piece
is placed in the rather limited space in
the centre.
100-0
10 lbe4 is playable but Black rather
easily solves his problems as long as
there is a check on b4: 10 ... i.b4+ 11
~e2 'ilVdS 12 'ikc2 0-0 13 .l:r.hdl 'ilVc7
14 a3 i.e7 15 .l:r.acl .l:r.dS 16 h3 b6 17
'ii;>f1 1 h- 1 h Ribli-Dreev, Calcutta 1992.
10 ... 'iYe7
With no check on b4, White was
threatening 11 lbe4 'ilVe7 12 lbxd6+
'ikxd6 13 e4 with an advantage.
lllbe4
Anyway. The main virtue of this
move is now to defuse the ... e5 break

THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 tiJd7 8 i.d3 dxc4 189
by preparing to clear the c-file, and
with the knight controlling the d6-
square it means that a future ... eS can
be met by dS threatening d6. Other
moves have promised very little:
a) The kind of position arising
from, for example, 11 e4 e5 12 dS
liJb6 13 dxc6 bxc6 (13 ... liJxc4? 14
cxb7 followed by 'ifa4+) 14 i.b3 i.g4
15 h3 i.h5 16 :cl 0-0 is generally accepted
as fine for Black, whose active
piece-play makes up for his inferior
pawn-structure.
b) 11 'iWd3 0-0 12 :adl :d8 13
i.b3 i.c7 14 i.c2liJf8 15 'ife2 cS 16
'ifc4 cxd4 17 exd4 i.aS + Ljubojevic­
I.Sokolov, Dutch Cht (Breda) 1997.
c) 11 'iWc20-0 12 a3 (12 :ac1 eS
13liJe4 exd4 14liJxd6 'ifxd6 15 :fdl
liJb6 16 :xd4 'iWe7 17 i.b3 i.e6 =
Stone-L.B.Hansen, Groningen 1992)
12 ... eS 13 i.a2 liJf6 (13 ... exd4 14
exd4! is better for White) 14 dxe5
i.xe5 IS liJxeS 'if xeS 16 :ae 1 i.e6 17
i.bl :ad8 18 f4 'ifd6 19 e4 'ifd4+ 20
'iff2 i.c4 21 'ifxd4 :xd4 22:f3 :d2
23 b4 :fd8 24 eS liJe8 2S fS liJc7 26
:g3 ~f8 with a roughly equal endgame,
I.Sokolov-Dreev, Biel IZ 1993.
1l ... i.c7 12 :cl
Shirov tried to leave out :c1 for a
few moves and was to some extent rewarded:
12 'ifc2 0-0 13 i.b3 :d8 14
:fdlliJf8 IS liJeS i.d7 16 f4 i.e8 17
liJc5 i.d6 18 :ac1 and after 18 .. .'~h8
19 liJe4 i.c7 (Shirov-Dreev, Linares
1995) White's best is 20 'ifc5 'ifxc5 21
liJxc5 :ab8 22 i.c4, intending 23 b4
with a comfortable game for White.
Dreev instead suggests that Black
should prefer 18 .. J%ac8, claiming 19 fS
was not a threat by analysing 19 ... i.xeS
20 dxeS :xd 1 + 211hd 1 exfS 22 'ifxf5
:c7 and now 23liJe4 i.d7 24 'ikh.s (24
'iff4liJg6) 24 ... i.e6 +, or 23 e6 b6! 24
liJa6 fxe6, but this allows 2S liJxc7.
Perhaps he meant 24 .. J:tb7 intending
... fxe6. The real point of 18 ... :ac8 is
that Black is ready to meet Shirov's
plan 19liJe4 with 19 ... i.b8, when 20
'ifcs is pointless as Black can simply
avoid the queen exchange by 20 ... 'ifc7.
12 ... 0-0 13 'ifc2 ( D)
A slightly different piece arrangement
is seen if White chooses 13 'ife2
but with White not controlling the c­
file as much as in the main line, Black
might take the opportunity to play
13 ... e5!? 14 dS cxdS IS i.xdSliJb6!?
Instead in Bareev-Anand, Linares 1992
Black chose 13 ... :d8 14 i. b3 as IS a3
liJf6?! (IS ... liJf8) 16liJxf6+ 'ifxf6 17
:fdl and White was better. It is interesting
that even though Black's knight
does not look at much it is best to keep
it in order to defend the kingside.
B

190 THE B01VINNIK SEMI-SLAV
13 .. J:td8
Preparing the regrouping of the
pieces .... lLlfS and ... ..td7-eS. mentioned
in the introduction to the chapter.
Black has also tried two interesting
ideas to prepare ... eS:
a) On 13 ... b6. Yusupov suggests 14
..tbS. when 14 ... cxbS IS "fixc7 gives
White a clear advantage. This is true.
but Black should grab a pawn with
14 ... ..txh2+. While it does not solve
all his problems. Black at least has a
pawn to compensate. However. White
still enjoys a nice initiative after IS

THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 liJd7 8 ~d3 dxc4 191
example, 15 ... b6 White does not have
the usual 16 i.b5 (Black simply replies
16 ... i.xh2+ 17 ..txh2 cxb5 and
White can hardly increase the pressure).
15 i.b3 cuts across the ... b6
plan but White has also tried two other
moves that attempt to dissuade this:
a) After 15 ttJc5 I?, White can meet
15 ... b6 with 16 ttJa6. Chemin-Dreev,
Moscow 1989 therefore continued instead
15 ... i.d6!? 16 ttJe4 i.c7 17 ttJc5
i.d6 18 ttJd3 i.d7 19 e4 i.e8 20 'iWe2
i.c7 21 e5 i.b6 22 'iWe3 a5 with a
roughly equal position. White has
managed to get his pawn to e5 but it
has been at the cost of a not very optimal
piece placement.
b) 15 a3 a5 (15 ... b6 16 b4!?) 16
i.a2 i.d7 17 ttJc5 l:ta7 18 e4 (18 ttJe5
i.e8 19 f4 c;i;>h8 20 'fif2 f6 21 ttJf3 b6
22 ttJe4 a4 23 g4l:ta5 gave Black good
counterplay in Bellon-Dreev, Logrofio
tt 1991) 18 ... i.e8 19 e5 b6 (19 ... ttJg6?!
20 'iWe4 i.b6 21 ttJa4 i.c7 22 h4 'uaa8
23 'ii'g4 b6 24 h5 ttJf8 25 ttJc3 c;i;>h8 26
ttJe4 ± Ward-Ferguson, Hastings 1995
- see also the introduction to the chapter)
20 ttJa4 (20 ttJe4 is more ambitious;
then after 20 ... a4 White can try
to improve his position with ttJg3,
'fie4, etc.) 20 ... ,Uaa8 112-112 Sakaev­
Dreev, Bmo 1992. It is now more difficult
for White to achieve the attacking
formation with the queen on g4
and knight on e4 since White must
constantly watch out that Black is not
allowed to free his position by means
of ... c5.
15 ... i.d7
15 ... a5 16 a3 i.d7 17lbc5 reaches,
via a slightly different move-order, a
position from which Artur Yusupov
has been very successful as White:
a) 17 ... :'a7 18 e4 i.e8 19 e5 i.b6
is the same position as in Sakaev-Dreev
above, except that White's bishop is
here on b3, thus preventing Black from
playing ... a4. Yusupov-Dreev, Tilburg
1992 then continued 20 lbe4 'uaa8 21
i.a2 :'d7 22 'iWb3 i.a7 23 lbd6 ;1;.
b) 17 .. J::tab8 18 e4! i.c8 (18 ... i.e8
19 e5 ;1;) 19 ttJd3!? ttJg6 20 e5 ttJh4?!
(an instructive example of the defending
side not benefiting from exchanges;
20 ... i.d7 is better) 21 ttJdel !
lbxf3+ 22 ttJxf3 i.d7 23 'ife4! c5!?
(after 23 ... i.e8 24 h4 it becomes clear
why Black should not have exchanged
his knight; White is planning h5 and
i.c2 with a strong attack) 24 :xc5
i.c6 25 'iff4 i.xf3!? 26 gxf3!, Yusupov-M.Gurevich,
Munich 1993. Black
can claim some sort of compensation
due to the opposite-coloured bishops
but it is evidently not enough.
16 ttJc5 :ab817 a3
17 e4 looks more ambitious but I
cannot help feeling that Black is better
off with the pawn still being on a7
compared to some of the similar positions
examined above.
17 ... i.e8 18 i.a2 ~h8 19 ttJd3 b6
20 b4 l:tdc8 21 :d2 :a8 22 'i¥b2 a5
23 :dc2 axb4 24 axb4 f6!?
The position is more or less equal,
P.Cramling-Galliamova, Groningen
worn Ct 1997. White has maintained
her space advantage but the b4-pawn

192 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
might become weak. Moreover, Black
is almost ready to activate her lightsquared
bishop.
B)
9 ... g6 10 0-0 i.g7 (D)
Black can avoid Line B3 by first
playing 10 ... 'ii'e7. The queen usually
has to retreat to e7, so the choice is
quite sensible in itself since that particular
line might be the most problematic
for Black at the moment. The
disadvantage, however, is that after 11
e4 i.g7 12 eS, White has achieved a
favourable version of Line B2.
w
Now we have:
Bl: 11:c1 192
B2: 11 e4 196
B3: 11 b4 199
Other continuations that merit some
attention are:
a) 11 h3?! seems like rather a
worthless move compared with some
of the positions considered later on;
e.g., 11...0-0 12 e4 'ike7 (after 12 ... eS
13 dS lbb6 14 i.b3 there would be
some point in White's 11th move since
Black cannot play ... i.g4) and I would
certainly rather have my rook on cl
(Line Bl) than the pawn on h3.
b) 11 a4 0-012 as 'iie7 13 'ikc2 cS!
14 .l:r.fdl (14 dslbf6 is fine for Black)
14 ... cxd4 IS exd4lbf6 = Salov-Komarov,
St Petersburg 1997.
c) 11 'iWc2 0-0 and now:
cl) 12 .l:r.adl 'ike7 13 .l:r.fel :d8 14
a3 b6 ISlbe2 i.b7 16 ltJf4 ltJf8 17 h3
1/2_ 1 /2 Kasparov-Ehlvest, Riga Tal mem
1995.
c2) 12 lbe4 'ike7 13 i.b3 with a
further branch:
c21) 13 ... .l:r.d8 14 :adl as IS a3
.l:r.a6 16 .l:r.d2 lbf6 17 lbcS .l:r.a 7 18 lbeS
i.d7 19 .l:r.fd 1 i.e8 20 lba4 .l:r.aa8! =
Bareev-Dreev, Wijk aan Zee 1995.
c22) 13 ... eS! (this makes sense as
long as White does not get any advantage
from playing dS) 14 :adl exd4
IS exd4lbb6!? 16 .l:r.fel i.g4171tJed2
'ikd6 18 h3 i.fS 191tJe4 'iif4! with a
good position for Black, Dautov­
Godena, Vienna 1996.
c3) 12 i.b3 'iWe7 13 :adl b6 14
e4 i.b7 IS .l:r.fel :fd8 16 eS lbf8
(16 ... :ab8!?) 17 'iWe2 cS 18 dS exdS
19 lbxdS i.xdS 20 i.xdS :ac8 21
'ikc4 ;!; Chernin-Kuczynski, Debrecen
Echt 1992.
B1)
11 .l:r.cl
A very flexible continuation, in
which White can still play in the centre
or on the queenside. Of course, the

THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 liJd7 8 ~d3 dxc4 193
main virtue of the move is that it is directed
against Black's ... cS advance,
and in general occupying the c-file
with the rook makes it less attractive
for Black to move his b-pawn.
11 ... 0-0
This 'automatic' move is not necessarily
best. I actually prefer 11...'ii'e7
for the simple reason that it avoids
Line B3. Also, Black might sometimes
eschew castling for a more rapid
development of the queenside. There
seems to be no clear way for White to
take advantage of the slight amendment
of the move-order. Here are a
few examples:
a) 12 'ii'c2 0-0 13 l:Hdl b6 14 e4
i.b71S'ii'e2(1SeS!?) IS ... bSI6i.b3
a6 17 eS cS 18 dS c4 19 i.c2 (19 d6
'ii'd8 2p' i.c2 i.xf3 21 'ii'xf3 ttJxeS)
19 ... exdS 20 ttJxdS i.xdS 21 l:.xdS
l:.fe8 22 l:.el l:.ad8 + Savchenko-Magerramov,
Groningen open 1993.
b) 12 i.b3 b6!? 13 ttJe2 i.b7 14
ttJf4 0-0 IS 'ii'c2 l:.fd8 16 l:.fd 1 l:.ac8
17 'ii'e2 a6 18 a3 bS 19 ttJd3 cS 20 dxcS
ttJxcS 21 ttJxcS l:.xd 1 + 22 i.xd 1 l:.xcS
23 l:.xcS 'ii'xcs + Bator-eu.Hansen,
Malm61996.
c) 12 e4 0-0 and then:
cl) 13 l:.el l:.d8 (13 ... eS 14 dS ttJb6
IS dxc6! bxc6 {IS ... ttJxc4 16 ttJdS
'ii'd6 17 l:hc4 bxc6 18 l:.xc6! +-} 16
i.b3 l:.d8 17 'ii'c2 gave White an edge
in Piket-Novikov, Antwerp 1996) 14
eS (D) with a further branch:
cll) 14 ... bS!? IS i.d3 i.b7 16 ttJe4
cS, Khalifman-Khuzman, Amsterdam
1995, and now 17 dxcS!? i.xe4 18
B
i.xe4 l:.ac8 19 c6 ttJxeS 20 'ii'b3
ttJxf3+ 21 i.xf3 would give White an
edge according to Khuzman.
el2) 14 ... b6 IS 'ii'e2 and now:
c121) IS ... i.b7 16 i.a6 ':ab8 17
i.xb71hb7 18 a3 cS 19 'ii'e4 l:bb8 20
ttJbS cxd4 21 ttJbxd4 ± Sadler-Van
Wely, Monaco Amber rpd 1998.
el22) IS ... a6 16 i.d3 i.b7 17 i.e4
bS 18 ttJbl (18 h4!?) 18 ... l:.dc8 19
ttJbd2 as 20 ttJb3 a4 21 ttJcS ttJxcS 22
l:.xcS ;!; Vaganian-Akopian, Groningen
FIDE KO Wch 1997.
el23) IS ... aSI6i.d3! i.b717 i.e4
i.a6 18 'ti'e3 l:.ac8 19 h4 ± Beliavsky-Pavasovi6,
Krsko (1) 1997. White
already has an attack going on the
kingside while Black is yet to find a
reasonable way to enforce ... cS.
el24) IS ... .:bS! (now Black is
ready to play ... i.b7 without having to
worry about White exchanging bishops
with i.a6, for then Black can simply
retreat the bishop to as) 16 i.d3
and now:
c1241) An unusual but nevertheless
interesting way of preparing ... cS

194 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
was seen in Dautov-Fridman, Pula
Echt 1997: 16 ... 'iff8!? (now d4-dS-d6
will not come with tempo) 17 h4 cS 18
dS .i.b7 (with the queen on e7, White
would be able to play 19 d6 'iff8 20
.i.e4!) 19 hS exdS 20 hxg6 and now
Sadler considers 20 ... f6!? 21 e6liJeS
as a good chance for Black.
c1242) 16 ... .i.b7 17 .i.e4liJf8 (or
17 ... bS 18 'ife3 :tdc8 19liJd2 'iff8 20
f4 a6 21 'iff3 .i.a8 22 a3 cS with counterplay,
Bacrot-Godena, Elista OL
1998) 18 g3 :bc8 19 a3 :c7 20 :tedl
cS 21 .i.xb7 lbb7 22 liJe4 with an
edge for White, Ivanchuk-Kramnik,
Novgorod 1996.
c2) 13 eS Ad8 14 'ife2 cS!? (after
14 ... b6 IS :fel we have transposed to
'el2' above) IS dSliJxeS!? 16liJxeS
exdS 17 liJf3 'ifxe2 18 .i.xe2 .i.e6 (I
am amazed that Black can get away
with such a sacrifice but White's problem
is that there is no clear way of
improving his position as Black's
pawns restrict the knights very well)
19liJbS!? (M.Gurevich also analyses
19 :tfdl %tac8 20 liJa4 b6 21.i.a6 %tc7
22 b4 .i.f8 23 'ifi>f1 .i.d6 24 bxcS bxcS
2S liJc3 .i.f4, when Black maintains
his pawn-centre and has good compensation)
19 ... :dc8 20 b4 (White
logically attempts to destroy the centre)
20 ... cxb4 (20 ... b6 21 bxcS bxcS 22
:fdl a6 23 liJc3 is very good for
White since Black will be forced to
weaken his centre by moving one of
the pawns) 21 liJc7 Aab8 22 .i.bS
cJi>f8! (White was threatening 23liJxe6
fxe6 24 .i.d7) 23 .i.a4 (23liJxe6+ fxe6
24 ':xc8+ ':xc8 2S .i.d7 %tc2 26 .i.xe6
:txa2 27 .i.xdS %tc2 is stronger according
to M.Gurevich, but the issue
remains unclear) 23 ... .i.fS! 24liJxdS
bS 2S .i.b3 as with strong counterplay,
Hillarp Persson-M.Gurevich, Korinthos
1998.
Returning to the position after
1l...0-0(D):
12 :tel
This little move was for a short period
quite popular but now 1 do not
think that White is able to get any advantage
with it. Here is a summary of
the other options:
a) 12 b4 is considered in the note to
White's 12th move in Line B3.
b) 12 .i.b3 l:[d8 13 'ifc2 'ife7 14
:tfdl (this is too slow; White should
play 14liJe4, transposing to 'c' below)
14 ... b6 IS a3 .i.b7 16 .i.a2 a6 17
liJd2?! (White should try 17 e4 cS 18
dS bS but this kind of structure is usually
not in White's favour as Black has
plenty of counterplay due to his strong
bishop on g7, which assists the 3 vs 2

THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 tDti7 8 .ii.d3 dxc4 195
majority on the queenside) 17 ... cS 18
ltJc4 (White should try to liquidate
with 18 dxcS since now he is saddled
with an isolated pawn, which Black can
easily blockade and attack) 18 ... cxd4
19 exd4 bS 20 ltJaS ltJb6 21 ltJxb7
'fixb7 22 ltJe2 l:tac8 23 'fid3 'fid7 +
Salov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1998.
c) 121tJe4!? 'fie7 13 ~b3! (White
attempts to prevent the usual fianchetto)
13 ... l:td8 (13 ... b6 14 ~a4! cS IS
~c6 l:tb8 16 'iia4 ~b7 17 ~xb7 l:txb7
18 dxcS bxcS 19 b3 is very pleasant
for White) 14 'iic21tJf6 (14 ... aS IS a3
ltJf6 16 ltJcs l:ta7 17 ltJeS ~d7 is
about equal) IS ltJcs b6?! (a mistake
that is worth noting since White now
obtains a grip with a series of powerful
moves; lS ... aS is again preferable) 16
ltJeS! l:td6 (16 ... bxcS 171tJxc6 'fid6 18
ltJxd8 'iixd8 19 'iixcS! gives White an
advantage due to his control of the c­
file and Black being unable to activate
his rook without losing the a-pawn) 17
ltJcd3 ~b7 18 ~a4 l:tc8 19 b4 and
White is better as he has successfully
prevented ... cS and ... eS, and Black
will have to defend c6, Dautov-Dreev,
Reggio Emilia 199516.
d) 12 'iie2 'fie7 13 l:tfd1 a6 (preparing
the freeing ... bS followed by
... cS) 14 a3 (14 ~b3 b6 IS e4 ~b7 16
'iie3 cS 17 dS bS 18 'ili'f4 c4 = LSokolov-Timman,
Dutch Ch playoff (Amsterdam)
1996) 14 ... b6 IS e4 ~b7 16
eS (Dreev queries this move, which
gives Black an easy game; 16 ~a2 is
better) 16 ... cS 17 dS bS 18 ~a2 c4 19
~b1 exdS 20 ltJxdS ~xdS 21 l:txdS
l:tfe8 + Van Wely-Dreev, Wijk aan
Zee 1996.
e) 12 e4 eS (Black's activity more
or less makes up for the structural
weaknesses he gets; 12 ... 'fie7 transposes
to note 'c' to Black's 11th move
above) 13 dslDb614 dxc6 bxc6 (Black
cannot avoid this structure; 14 ... ltJxc4
IS lDdS is clearly better for White,
while the attempt to avoid the structure
with 14 ... 'fixc6 results in a much
worse position: lSltJdS 'iid6 16 ~b3
and now Korchnoi-McDonald, Hamburg
1997 continued 16 ... ~g4?! 17
l:tc7! ltJxdS 18 l:txb7 ~xf3 19 gxf3
'iif6 20 ~xdS ±) IS ~e2 l:td8 16 'fic2
~g4 (D) (16 ... ~e6!? intending ... hS
and ... ~h6 is another idea). White can
now choose between no fewer than
four different knight moves:
w
e1) 17 lDd2!? 'figS 18 l:tfd1 ~h3
19 ~f1 is suggested by Chekhov but
does not really appeal to me. White
will be forced to weaken his kingside
after 19 ... ~g4 or allow a repetition of
moves.

196 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SIA V
e2) 17 ~dl ':d6 (17 ... J-xf3 18
J-xf3 l:tac8 19 ~e3 hS 20 ':fd 1 ltd4
liz_liz Hillarp Persson-Stefansson, COpenhagen
1998) 18 ~e3 J-xf3 19
J-xf3 hS 20 a4 J-h6 21 as ~d7 22
l:tfdl J-xe3 23 fxe3 l::tc8 is roughly
equal, Vaganian-Akopian, Groningen
FIDE KO Wch 1997. White has a
small initiative but at the cost of a
compromised pawn-structure.
e3) 17 ~bl!? J-xf3 18 J-xf3 .l:.d6
19 ~d2 (19 a4!?) 19 ... hS 20 ~b3 as
21 .l:.fdl l:txdl+ 22 ltxdl 'iWe6 23 a3
(Kuijf and de Boer suggest 23 J-e2
with an edge for White) 23 ... 'iWc4 24
l::tc 1 'iWxc2 2S .l:.xc2 ~a4! and Black is
very near equality, Van der Sterren­
Kamsky, Wijk aan Zee Ct (7) 1994.
e4) 17 ~a4!? (White intends simply
to settle on the cS-square rather
than attempting to pressurize the c6-
pawn) 17 ... hS (17 ... J-xf3 18 J-xf3
.l:.d4 19 ~cS ':ad8 20 ~b3 .l:.4d6 21
.l:.fdl ;t Lutz) 18 ~cS J-h6 19 .l:.cdl
J-f8 20 ~b7! l:txdl 21 ':xdll::tc8 22
~aS J-b4 23 ~b3 J-f8 24 ~bd2 .l:.d8
2S h3 J-xf3 26 ~xf3 l:txd 1 + 27 J-xdl,
Dautov-I.Sokolov, Dresden 1998. The
ending is as usual slightly in White's
favour but I feel Black should be able
to hold it without too much trouble.
Returning to the position after 12
l::tel (D):
12 ... l:r.d813 'iWc2
Other moves do not promise White
any advantage:
a) 13 e4 eS 14 'iWb3 ~e7 IS dS
~b6 16 dxc6 bxc6 liz_liz P.H.Nielsen­
Schandorff, Copenhagen 1996.
B
b) 13 ~e2 'iWe7 and now:
bl) 14 e4 cS IS dS ~b6 16 b3 (16
h3 ~xc4 17 'iWxc4 b6 18 eS exdS 19
~xdS 'iWe6 20 ~c7 'iWxc4 21 ':xc4
l:tb8 22 e6 fxe6 23 ~xe6 lte8 24 ~xg7
l:r.xel+ 2S ~xel ~xg7 with a slight
advantage for Black, Hillarp Persson­
Stefansson, Reykjavik 1998) 16 ... exdS
17 ~xdS ~xdS 18 J-xdS ltb8 with
equality, Filippov-Supatashvili, Ekaterinburg
1997 .
b2) 14 ~e4 as IS J-b3 b6 16 ~c3
J-b7 liz-liz Timman-Gelfand, Erevan
OL 1996.
13 ... 'iWe714 a3 b61S e4 J-b716 eS
.l:.ab8 17 ':cdl
Korchnoi suggests 17 J-a2!? with
the idea of meeting 17 ... cS by 18 dS
exdS 19 ~xdS J-xdS 20 J-xdS ~f8 21
'iWe4, with an edge.
17 ... bS! 18 J-a2 cS19 dS c4
The position is unclear, Korchnoi­
Bareev, Ubeda 1997.
82)
11 e4 (D)
l1 ... eS!

THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 liJd7 8 i..d3 dxc4 197
B
11...0-0 12 e5 'ike7 gives White a
space advantage, but has a strategically
interesting aspect. While most
middlegames are slightly superior for
White, Black will be quite happy if he
reaches an endgame, for then the e­
pawn will show to be more of a weakness.
White's main strategy therefore
fIrst involves dissuading the ... c5 advance:
a) 13 'ike2!? and now:
a1) After 13 ... c5?!, Kamsky suggests
14 l:tad1 cxd4 15 .l:.xd4 with an
edge for White, while he does not like
14 d5! in view of 14 ... ttJxe5 IS ttJxeS
exdS, when 16 ttJxg6 'iVxe2 17 .ixe2
fxg6 18 ttJxdS .ixb2 19 .l:.ab1 .if6!
gives Black a clear advantage, but why
not 16 ttJf3 instead? I can hardly believe
that Black's compensation is suffIcient
after 16 ... 'iVxe2 17 i.xe2.
Hence 14 dS! looks much easier.
a2) 13 ... .l:.d8 14 .l:.fe1 transposes to
'b2' below.
a3) 13 ... b6 14 l:tfe1 and now:
a31) 14 ... a61Si.d3(lSttJe4c5=)
lS ... i.b7 16 i.e4 l:ta7 (16 ... l:tab8!?)
171bc1 bS 18 'ilVe3!? (trying to take
advantage of the relatively strange position
of Black's rook on a7) 18 ... cS
19 dS! ttJxeS 20 ttJxeS i.xe5 21 dxe6!,
Kamsky-Kramnik, Lucerne Wcht 1993,
and now according to Kramnik Black
could equalize with 21...~g7!. In fact
Black certainly looks no worse after
22 i.xb7 i.d4 23 'iVg3 'ikxb7.
a32) 14 ... a5!? IS ttJe4?! (Kamsky's
plan with IS i.d3 is worth considering)
IS ... cS! 16 dxcS bxcS 17 ltJed2
(17 ttJd6? ttJxe5!) 17 ... l:td8 18 l:tad1
i.b7 = Hulak-B.Lalic, Yugoslav Ch
1989.
b) 13 .l:.e1 with the following possibilities:
bl) Kramnik's plan with 13 ... b6 is
here best met by 14 ttJe4, with the
point 14 ... l:td8 IS ttJd6 cS 16 dS ttJxeS
17 ttJxc8 ttJxf3+ 18 'iVxf3 l:taxc8 19
dxe6±.
b2) 13 ... .l:.d8 14 'ilVe2 and then:
b21) 14 ... ttJb6 IS i.b3 cS 16 dxcS
'ilVxcs 17 ttJe4 'ilVb4 18 ttJd6 with an
edge for White, Korchnoi-Anic, Enghien
1997.
b22) 14 ... bS IS i.d3 i.b7 16 i.e4
.l:.ab8 17 .l:.ac1 ;t Van Wely-Magerramov,
Tilburg 1992.
b3) 13 ... bS!? 14 i.b3 (14 i.d3 is
better; White needs his bishop on e4
in the event of Black playing ... cS)
14 ... i.b7 IS l:tc1 l:tfd8 16 'ilVe2 'ilVb4!?
(I do not see anything wrong with the
immediate 16 ... cS!; e.g., 17 ttJxbS
i.xf3 18 'ir'xf3 cxd4 19 ttJxd4 ltJxeS)
17 ttJe4 c5 18 ttJd6 l:tab8 19 ltJxb7
.l:.xb7 20 d5! (it is not an easy position,

198 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
but White has to be praised for finding
a way to complicate things) 20 ... c4 21
dxe6 fxe6 22 .tc2 (22 .tdl tiJc5 +)
22 ... 1Wxb2 23 1We4 Ac7, Cebalo-Scekie.
Nova Gorica 1997, and now White
could claim reasonable compensation
with 24 Abl 'i'xa2 25 lhb5 tiJf8 26
:eb 1 - Sceki6.
12 dS tiJb6 13 ~b3
If White wishes to avoid the forthcoming
endgame he should try 13 tiJd2
but Black's chances are not worse:
a) 13 ...'ii'g5 14 'ii'e2 0-0 15 l:tfdl
~h3 16 f3 Aad8 17 ~b3 ~c8 18 tiJc4
tiJxc4 19 ~xc4 with an edge for
White, Piket-Van der Wiel, Dutch Ch
(Rotterdam) 1998.
b) 13 ... 0-0 14 a4 l:td8 15 a5 tiJxc4
16 tiJxc4 'Ii' g5 17 'ii'b3 ~h3 18 tiJe3
':ab8 19 l:tacl ~f8 20 ~hl ~d7 21
tiJe2 cxd5 22 tiJxd5 ~e6 was fine for
Black in Piket -Kramnik, Linares 1997.
13 ... ~g4!
The resulting endgame is probably
a tiny bit better for White but Black
should still play this, for after 13 ... 0-0
14 h3! the bishop is deprived of much
of its scope and Black has no convincing
counterplay to contain White's
passed d-pawn; e.g., 14 ...':d8 15 'ii'e2
~d7 16 Afdl ':ac8 (16... c5 17 tiJd2
tiJc8 18 ~a4 Ab8 19 ~xd7 ':xd7 20
a4 ± Anastasian-Pelletier, Pula Echt
1997) 17 a4 cxd5 18 ~xd5 (18 exd5!)
18 ... tiJxd519 tiJxd5 'li'e6 with roughly
equal chances, Shulman-Ippolito, Linares
1997.
14 h3 ~xf3 15 'iixf3 'ii'xf3 16 gxf3
~e717 dxc6 bxc6 (D)
White's chances ought to be slightly
better as the c6-pawn is weaker than
the doubled f-pawns. However, Black
has had few problems defending this
position in practice. Both sides have
little chance of generating an attack,
so here the opposite-coloured bishops
are often only a drawing factor.
w
IS':ac1!?
In the game Khalifman-Akopian,
Erevan 1996, White used the other
rook and immediately began redeploying
the knight: 18 l:.fc1 l:.hd8 19
tiJd 1 l:td6 20 l:tc3 a5!? 21 tiJe3 h5 22
Ibcl a4 23 ~dl ~d7 24 ~f1 ~h6
with a roughly equal position.
IS ..• l:tabS
If Black embarks on the plan chosen
by Akopian, White can here exchange
a rook with l:tfdl. Swapping
one pair of rooks actually increases
the pressure as Black will then often
end up with two weaknesses (c6 and
f7). Take, for example, a position with
a white rook on the c-file and one pair
of rooks and the knights exchanged

THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 CUd7 8 i.d3 dxc4 199
(this is actually one of such positions
where the opposite-coloured bishops
favour White). Then White can very
likely provoke ... c5, whereafter White's
bishop will become much stronger
than its opposite number. Placing it on
d5 will create a pathway for White's
king across the light squares towards
the queenside. Black can probably still
defend but it is certainly unpleasant.
19lLle2!?
If 19 l::tc2, Atalik gives 19 ... h5! 20
lLla4 l::thc8 21lLlc5 (21 l::tfcl?! .th6)
2l...a5!? with counterplay. Even though
it is probably not enough to win if
Black plays correctly, I would certainly
rather be White after 22 l::tdl
.th6 23 l::tc3 intending ':cd3.
19 •• J:thc8 20 l::tc5lLld7 21lh5 l::tb7
22 l::tellLlb8 23 lLlc3 l::td8 24 lLldl h5
25lLle3
The rook on the 5th rank prevents
Black activating his bishop immediately.
25 .• .'~f6!?
A simpler method of equalizing is
25 ... f6.
26 lLlc4 .th6 27 l::tdl l::txdl+ 28
i.xdl a6!!
A very profound defence. 28 ... .tf4?
29 .ta4! is unpleasant, but after the
text-move White has to be content
with an equal position. Black's idea is
... l::tb5, while White gets nothing from
taking the e5-pawn; e.g., 29 lLlxe5?
i.d2 30 l::tc5 .tb4 or 29 l::txe5 l::txb2!.
29 .te2! l::tb5 30 l::ta4 c5!? 31 b3
l::tb4 32 l::ta3! .tel 33 l::ta5 l::tb5 34
l::txb5 axb5 35 lLld6 b4 36lLlb7
Ehlvest-Atalik, Philadelphia 1995.
Now 36 ... lLlc6 followed by ... lLld4
would have assured instant equality.
83)
11 b4(D)
It is not clear how useful 11 l::tc 1
really is if Black takes his time ftrst to
prevent White from following up with
b4, and 11 e4 e5 seems to solve Black's
problems rather easily, so this immediate
advance of the b-pawn has lately
become White's best chance of an
opening advantage.
11 ... 0-0
11...a5 is an attempt to take advantage
of the early move with the b-pawn
but 12 b5 c5 13 lLle4 'ike7 14 dxc5 is
very strong. Taking on al is evidently
too risky and it is hardly advisable to
recapture on c5, with a knight dropping
into d6. P.Cramling-Portisch, Prague
(Women vs Veterans) 1995 therefore
continued 14 ... 0-0 15 l::tcl lLlxc5 16
lLlxc5 'ikxc5 17 i.xe6 'ikxb5 18 .td5
with an advantage for White.

200 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
12a4
12 l:r.c 1 is also very common and often
arises from the move-order 11 l:r.c1
0-012 b4. Now Black has a choice:
a) 12 ... b6 13 bS!? cS (13 ... .i.b7 !?)
14lLle4 (14 dSlLleS ISlLlxeS 'ii'xeS is
fine for Black) 14 ... 'ii'e7 IS dxcslLlxcs
16 lLlxcs bxcS (16 ... 'ii'xcs 17 .i.xe6
'ii'xbS 18 .i.dS .i.a6 19 .i.xa8 'ii'xfl +
20 'ii'xfl .i.xfl 21 .i.dS intending l:r.c7
gives White an advantage - Novikov)
17 'ii'a4 .i.b7 18 .i.e2 l:r.fd8 with approximately
equal play, Aseev-Novikov,
Novgorod 1995. Black's bishops
and active position make up for the
isolated c-pawn.
b) 12 ... eS 13 .i.b3! exd4 14 exd4
':d8?! (Sakaev and Nesis recommend
14 ... lLlb6, when after ISlLleS, IS ... .i.e6
16lLle4 'ii'e7 17 .i.xe6 'ii'xe6 18lLlcs
'ile7 19 l:r.el leads to an edge for
White; perhaps IS ... .i.fS is worth considering)
IS l:r.ellLlf8 16lLle4 'ilf4 17
lLlcS! 'ilc7 18 'ile2! b6 19lLld3 ± Sakaev-Galliamova,
Alushta 1994.
c) 12 ... 'ile7 13 'ilb3 (D) with another
branch:
B
cl) 13 ... eS?! 14 bS exd4 IS exd4
lLlb616 l:r.fel ± Lutz-Kuczynski, Bundesliga
1992/3.
c2) 13 ... b6. Black has a reasonably
clear-cut plan, viz. to complete his development
and then prepare to play
... cS or ... eS; if White follows with a4
at some point then Black replies ... as.
By contrast, White's best plan is not at
all clear. The most logical is to continue
some sort of queens ide action
but Black seems well placed to meet
this; the other possibility is to switch
to playing in the centre:
c21) 14 bS .i.b7 IS bxc6 .i.xc6 16
.i.e2 (16 lLld2 a6 17 .i.d3 bS 18 .i.e4
.i.xe4 19lLlcxe4lLlb6 20 l:r.c6 'ilb7 21
l:r.c2 'ii'dS 22l:r.fc1 'ii'xb3 23lLlxb3lLldS
= P.Nikolic-Anand, Monaco Amber
rpd 1998) 16 .. J:tac8 (16 ... a6!? 17 a4
l:r.fb8, intending ... bS, is worth considering)
17 lLld2 lLlb8 18 a4 l:r.fd8 19 f4
.i.b7 20 lLlc4 with a small advantage
for White, Aseev-Prie, St Petersburg
1996.
c22) 14 e4 .i.b7 IS l:r.fel l:r.fd8
(1S ... l:r.ac8 16 a3l:r.fd8 17 l:r.cdllLlf8
18 h3 l:r.c7 19 eS l:r.cd7 20 ':d2 cS! =
Novikov-Slobodjan, Calcutta 1996)
16 a4lLlf8 (16 ... aS 17 bS cS 18 dS is
betterforWhite) 17l:r.cdl':ab818 bS
':bc8 19 bxc6 ':xc6 20 lLldS 'ild7 21
lLlb4 l:r.cc8 22 dS and White is better,
Bacrot-Savchenko, Elista OL 1998.
c3) 13 ... lLlb6!? Black gives up all
hope of carrying out ... eS but simply
intends to complete his development.
Since Black has dS available for the
knight, Black is just in time to place

THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 liJd7 8 i.d3 dxc4 201
his bishop on eS. 14 i.d3 (14liJe4!?
{intending b5} 14 ... liJxc4 15 'iWxc4
lId8 16 liJe5 might be a better chance
of an advantage) 14 .. JXd8 15 liJe4liJd5
16 a3 i.d7 and now:
c31) 17 lIc2 i.e8 18 lIbl lIdb8 19
liJed2 a5 20 i.fli.f8 21 e4liJc7 22 e5
liJd5 =+= Ionov-Andreev, St Petersburg
1998.
c32) 17 liJc5 i.e8 18 i.b1?! (18
lIfd1, with the idea of placing the
bishop on fl, is better) 18 ... b6 19liJd3
a5 20 ':c4 axb4 21 axb4 ':db8 =+=
P.Nikolic-Anand, Groningen FIDE
Wch KO 1997. Black's position is
rock solid and all his pieces are harmoniously
placed. White's bishop on
b1 is out of play and White must constantly
be on the alert to prevent Black
from opening up the position by ... c5.
c4) 13 ... lIdS. Now White can continue
his queenside expansion or react
in similarly flexible fashion:
c41) 14 a4 a5! 15 bxa5 (after 15 b5
c5, 16 d5liJb6 gives Black good counterplay
and on 16 b6?! Black has
16 ... cxd417 exd4 'iWb4!) 15 .. Jba516
':fd1 b6 17 liJd2 (17 i.e2 i.b7 18
liJd2 c5 19liJc4 ':aa8 20 d5 i.xc3! 21
dxe6 'iWxe6 22 ':d6 "ilfe7 23 'iWxc3 i.a6
with counterplay, Beliavsky-Dreev,
Novosibirsk 1995) 17 ... c5 18 d5 i.xc3!
(we have already examined this common
idea in the introduction) 19 ':xc3
liJf6 20 dxe6 i.xe6 21 ':cc1 lIa7 22
i.xe6 'iVxe6 1/2- 1 /2 P.Nikolic-Kramnik,
Erevan OL 1996.
c42) 14 ':fd1!? b6 (Black can
probably play 14 ... a5 anyway but there
is no need to do this when White has
not yet committed himself to a4) 15 b5
c5 (15 ... i.b7, similarly to 'c21' above,
is probably a better response) 16 d5
liJf8 17 dxe6 i.xe6 18liJd5 'iVb7 19 h3
lId7 20 lId2 ':ad8 21 ':cd1 ~h8 22
liJf4! i.xc4 23 'iWxc4 ;!;; Ionov-Yagupov,
St Petersburg 1995.
Returning to the position after 12
a4 (D):
B
12 .• JWe7
Black's problem is the development
of his light-squared bishop. It will
most likely have to be fianchettoed,
which defines Black's main short-term
plan, but first he improves the position
of his queen. The alternatives for
Black are:
a) 12 ... e5 13 a5 exd4 14 exd4 'ild6
(14 ... .:d8 15 'ilb3liJf8 16liJe4!? 'iWf4
17 liJc5 ;!;; Kumaran-Schandorff, Copenhagen
1996; of course there are
problems with the d-pawn, but White's
pressure on the a2-g8 diagonal makes
up for this) 15 ~b1 g5!? 16liJe4 'iWf4
17 l:!e1liJf6 18liJc5 i.f5 19 'iWb3 'fic7

202 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
20 tbe5 ;!; Tukmakov-Rogic, Croatian
Cht (Poree) 1998.
b) 12 ... b6!? 13 a5 :tb8 14 axb6 axb6
15 :a7 l:[b7 16 :a2 "ike7 17 "ikb3 c5
18 tbb5 cxd4. Beliavsky has reached
this position twice recently but without
proving any advantage for White:
b1) 19 exd4 tbf6 20 l:[e1 ~d7 21
l:[ae2 ~xb5 22 ~xb5 "ikd8 23 ~c6 .:ta7
24 g3 "ikd6 was fine for Black in Beliavsky-Timoshchenko,
Nova Gorica
1999.
b2) 19 tbbxd4 tbe5 20 ~e2 tbxf3+
21 ~xf3 ~xd4 22 exd4 l:[d7 23 d5
exd5 24 ~xd5 112-112 Beliavsky-Novikov,
Koszalin 1998.
13:bl
This move is a measure against
Black's defensive plan with ... a5 discussed
in the introduction to this chapter
and seen several times in the note
to White's 12th move above.
On the face of it, Beliavsky's suggestion
13 "ikb3!? looks more logical.
White retains an edge after 13 ... e5 14
a5 exd4 15 exd4, while 13 ... a5 14 b5
tbb6 15 bxc6 tbxc4 16 "ikxc4 bxc6 17
:tfc 1 also gave White the better prospects
in Pelletier-Lukasiewicz, Cannes
1998. 13 ... :d8 is slow but probably
best. Then Rausis-M.Gurevich, Vlissingen
1999 continued 14 a5 tbf6 15
tba4 ~d7 16 b5 cxb5 17 ~xb5 tbe4
18 :fc1 :ac8 19 ~d3 tbd6 =.
13 ... b6
The most accurate. Black would
like to play ... a5 but on the immediate
13 ... a5, Sakaev's 14 b5 looks strong:
a) 14 bxa5 (similar to the main
line) 14 ... .:txa5 15 'ili'c2 b6 and now:
a1) 16 e4 c5 17 d5 ~xc3 18 "ikxc3
:'xa4 19 'i'c2 :'a7 20 'ili'd2 exd5
(20 ... 'iti>g7!?) 21 exd5

16 Black's 8th Move Alternatives
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3lLlf3 lLlf6 4lLlc3 e6 5
i.g5 h6 6 i.xf6 'it'xf6 7 e3 lLld7 8
i.d3 (D)
B
In this chapter we shall consider
Black's alternatives to the main line
8 ... dxc4, which was covered in the
previous chapter. While all of them are
playable, they seem to lack the flexibility
of 8 ... dxc4.
Quick Summary
8 ... g6 (Line A) transposes to the previous
chapter if Black replies 9 ... dxc4 to
9 e4, but capturing the other way with
9 ... dxe4 is also playable. After 10
lLlxe4 i.b4+ 11 ~e2 Black should
prefer the aCGurate 11... 'it' g7 !.
8 ... i.d6 (Line B) gives White a
promising game and a large space advantage
after 9 0-0 'it'e7 10 c5! i.c7 11
e4 dxe4 12 lDxe4, which has been
confirmed in several games, although
12 ... 0-013 l:tel l:td8 14 'ii'c2lLlfS gave
Black reasonable chances in Bareev­
Granda, Groningen PCA qual 1993.
After 8 ... 'ii'd8 (Line C) 9 0-0 i.e7
White has a choice of the immediate
central action, 10 e4 (Line Cl), or
playing on the queenside with 10 a3
(Line C2). Both seem slightly in
White's favour.
The Theory of Black's 8th
Move Alternatives
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlf3lLlf6 4 lLlc3 e6 5
i.g5 h6 6 i.xf6 'iVxf6 7 e3 lLld7 8
i.d3
Now:
A: 8 ... g6 203
B: 8 ... i.d6 204
c: 8 ... 'iVd8 206
A)
8 ... g6 (D)
This often transposes to Chapter 15
if Black captures on c4 later.
ge4
Another option, of which particularly
Pia Cramling seems to be in favour,
is 9 cxd5 exd5 100-0 i.g7 11 b4,
which gives the position a distinct flavour
of an Exchange Queen's Gambit.

204 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
Then Black has tried:
a) 11...0-0?! is inaccurate and lets
White immediately transform into a
favourable structure with 12 b5 li'd6
13 bxc6 bxc6 14ltc1. White is ready
to play lLla4 with a bind, and is therefore
clearly better. In Ruban-Lazic,
Yugoslavia 1993 Black tried to avoid
this by 14 ... c5 but was presented with
yet another problem after 15 dxc5
lLlxc5 16 i.c4!.
b) 11...lLlb6 12ltc1 i.g4 13 i.e2
i.xf3 14 i.xf3 0-0 15 b5 'iWd6 16 'iWd3
(Lutz suggests another interesting
plan, viz. 16lLla4!? with the idea that
White will win back his pawn after
16 ... cxb5 17lLlxb6 axb6 IS 'iWb3, and
if 16 ... lLlc4 17lLlc5 b61SlLld3 White
can again win back the pawn after
IS ... cxb5 19 lLlf4) 16 ... 'iWa3 17 ltbl
ltfdS IS l:lb3 'ike7 19 bxc6 bxc6 20
l:ldl ;j; Lutz-Korchnoi, Ptuj 1995.
c) 11...'iWd6!? 12 'iWb3 (12 b5 can
now be answered by 12 ... c5!) 12 ... lLlb6
(again the most accurate since White
was ready to play b5) 13 a4 i.e6 14
lLld2 lLld7 15 lLle2 0-0 16 ltfc1 ltfeS
17 ltablltacS IS a5 i.g4 is roughly
equal, P.Cramling-Korchnoi, Prague
(Women vs Veterans) 1995.
9 ... dxe4
9 ... dxc4 transposes to Chapter 15;
e.g., Line B2 after 10 e5 'ike7 11 i.xc4
i.g7 12 0-0.
10 lLlxe4 i.b4+ 11 ~e2
This seems more logical than 11
~f1 but it is not entirely clear whether
it is really better. The problem for
Black is now that his queen is attacked
and hence White will gain a tempo for
c5, which cuts off Black's dark-squared
bishop.
11 ... li'g7!
11... 'ikdS 12 c5 0-0 13 h4 gave
White a promising attack in Ribli-Farago,
Hungarian Ch 1977.
12 e5 i.a5
Forced, or else White will trap the
bishop by 'iWa4.
13 lLld6+ ~e7 14 'ii'b3 i.e7 15
lthel!?
15 lLlxcs+ lthxcS 16 'iixb7 ltabS
17 'iixa7 ltxb2+ gives Black some
counterplay, although it is far from
certain whether it sufficiently compensates
the pawn. At any rate, this might
be an argument for placing the king on
f1 at move 11.
15 ... i.xd616 exd6+ ~xd617 'iitn
~e7 18 l:lac1lLlb6 19 lLle5
White has reasonable compensation
for the pawn, Topalov-Ljubojevic,
Monaco Amber rpd 1995.
B)
8 ... i.d6 9 0-0 'ii'e710 e5! (D)

BLACK'S 8TH MOVE ALTERNATIVES 205
B
This fairly typical move of such
Semi-Slav positions marks White's
space advantage further. Black is never
really able to exploit the hole that
arises on d5 and will be fighting to activate
his light-squared bishop.
10 ... .i.c7 11 e4 dxe4 12lDxe4
I would probably capture with the
knight automatically, but 12 .i.xe4!?
has some point. The reason is that after
Black plays ... lDf6 at some point in
reply to lDxe4 White usually avoids
the exchange of knights, and retreating
the knight to c3 might be best. Hence
White here argues that taking with the
bishop opens the opportunity to improve
the position of the bishop after
the same kind of sequence, that is retreating
it to c2. Here is an example to
back up a slightly confusing explanation:
12 ... 0-0 13 b4 .:ld8 14 l:tel
lDf6 15 .i.c2 (if White had taken on e4
with the knight and retreated it to c3,
White's bishop would now have been
on d3) 15 ... b6 16 .i.a4! i.b7 17 'ii'e2 a5
18 a3 with an edge for White, Polugaevsky-Mecking,
Lucerne Ct (I) 1977.
12 ... 0-013 l:tell:td8 14 'iVc2
Of course this contradicts my comment
to 12 .i.xe4!? above, but line 'b'
gives an idea of what I mean:
a) 14 'ii'e2 b6 15 b4 .i.b7 16 .:lac1
l:tac8 17 a3 .i.b8 18l:tcdl a5 19 g3 axb4
20 axb4 i.c7 21 h4 ~ Hjartarson-Bjarnason,
Icelandic Ch (Reykjavik) 1995.
b) 14 b4lDf8 15lDc3!? (Black did
not play ... lDf6 but White reckons that
retreating the knight is still the best decision
since Black could consider
playing ... lDg6 next) 15 ... 'ii'f6 16lDe4
'ii'e7 17lDc3 'ii'f6 18lDe5!? (18 'ii'b3)
18 ... i.d7?! (this is too passive; Sakaev
suggests 18 ... l:txd4!? 19 .i.h7+ ~xh7
20 'ilVxd4lDg6 21lDf3 'ii'xd4 22lDxd4
e5 23 lDb3 .i.e6 with compensation)
19lDg4! 'ii'g5 20lDe4 'ii'h4 21 g3 'fie7
22lDef6+! ~h8 23 d5 ± Sakaev-Neverov,
St Petersburg 1995.
14 ... lDf8
Or 14 ... lDf6 15 :'adl (Granda suggests
15 lDed2 with the idea of lDc4-
e5) 15 ... lDxe4 16 .i.xe4 .i.d7 17 lDe5
i.e8 18 g3 :'ac8 19 'ii'c3 .i.b8 20 b4
with an edge for White, lonov-Thorhallsson,
Cappelle la Grande 1996.
15lDed2
15 'ii'c3 .i.d7 16 .i.c4! i.e8 17 .i.b3
f6 18 lDed2 .i.f7 19 :'e2 is slightly
preferable for White due to the pressure
against e6 - Granda.
15 ... .i.d7 16lDc4 .i.e8 17 .:ladl f6
18 'iVc3 :'d7
In this position the chances are approximately
equal, Bareev-Granda,
Groningen peA qual 1993. White's
pressure against e6 is not as strong as

206 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
in the previous note and Black has
counterplay against d4.
C)
S .. :ii'dS
This is probably the most solid option
at Black's disposal, but it is also a
little passive. Black intends to develop
his bishop to e7, from where it, contrary
to placing it on d6, is not vulnerable
to attacks from a white e- or
c-pawn. But before developing the
bishop Black needs to retreat the queen
so as not to leave her majesty in front
of the army.
90-0 i.e7 (D)
w
There are now two strategic options
available for White. He can either play
on the queenside or attempt to exploit
his lead in development and space advantage
by breaking in the centre immediately.
Hence we have:
Cl: 10 e4 206
C2: 10 a3 207
Other possibilities:
a) 10 'ii'e2 0-0 IIl::tfdl f5 12l::tabl
a6 13 b4 i.d6 14 a4 tiJf6 15l::tdc1 tiJe4
16 'ii'c2 i.d7 17 b5 axb5 18 axb5 'ii'e7
with an unclear position, perhaps
slightly in White's favour, Torre-Ribli,
Alicante Ct (5) 1983.
b) 10 cxd5 exd5 (10.:.cxd5 11l::tc1
a6 is also about equal) 11 a3 a5 12 'ii'e2
0-0 13l::tadl. Some sort of Exchange
Queen's Gambit has arisen and I suspect
Black should have no genuine
problems here. The simple 13 ... l::te8
suggests itself. Nevertheless in the
game B6nsch-Sveshnikov, Sochi 1984
White was able to achieve a slight
edge after 13 ... i.d6 14 e4 dxe4 15
tiJxe4 tiJf6 16 tiJe5 i.e6 17 l::tfel.
c) 10 l::tc1 0-0 11 e4 (11 'ii'e2 a6 12
i.bl f5 13 tiJel i.d6 14 c5 i.c7 15 f4
tiJf6 16 i.d3 i.d7 was about equal in
Karpov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1998)
ll...dxc4 12 i.xc4 b5 13 i.b3 a6 14
'ii'e2 c5 15 a4 b4 16 tiJbl i.b7 17l::tfdl
'ii'b6 18 tiJbd2 cxd4 19 tiJc4 'ii'a7 20
tiJxd4 tiJc5 21 i.c2 i.g5 22l::tal 1 h- 1 h
Lazarev-Volodin, Cappelle la Grande
1997.
Cl)
10 e4 dxc4
Black could also consider the other
capture, 1O ... dxe4. This results in a
strategically different position from
the main line, for after Black breaks
with ... c5, White will obtain a 3 vs 2
majority on the queenside. However, it
is doubtful whether this is really to
White's advantage and another idea is
hence to play for a passed d-pawn.

BLACK'S 8TH MOVE ALTERNATIVES 207
Anapolsky-Szuhanek, Baile Herculane
1994 continued 11 liJxe4 c5 12
dxc5?! (Szuhanek queries this and instead
suggests 12 d5 but does not think
that Black has any problems; then
12 ... liJb6 is a possibility, while Szuhanek
also gives the following line:
12 ... liJf6 13 'iia4+ .id7 14 'iib3 exd5
15 cxdSliJxe4 16 .ixe4 .id6 17 'iixb7
l:tb8 18 'iixa7l:ta8 19 'iib7 with equality)
12 ... liJxc5 13 liJxc5 .ixc5 14
'iie20-0 15l:tad1 'iif6 (15 ... 'iic7!?) 16
liJe5 as! 17 'iifh 1 l:ta6 18 .ie4 l:td6 19
l:txd6 .ixd6 20 f4 and a draw was
agreed but Szuhanek rightly thinks
that Black would be slightly better after
20 ... l:td8.
11 .ixc4 b5 12 .ib3
12 .id3 0-0 13 e5 b4 14liJe4 c5 15
dxc5 liJxc5 16 liJxc5 .ixc5 17 'ii'c2
.ib7! 18 'iixc5 .ixf3 19 'iie3 .ib7 20
l:tfd1 \i'g5 21 \i'xg5 hxg5 was fine for
Black in Guliev-Vologin, Cappelle la
Grande 1996.
12 ••• 0-0
12 ... b4 13 liJa4 .ia6 14 d5!? exd5
15 liJd4 was seen in Tal-Chandler,
Sochi 1982 and now Black should play
15 ... liJe5 with great complications but
instead went wrong with 15 ... l:tc8 16
exd5 cxd5 17 l:te1 0-0 18 .ixd5, when
White was clearly better.
13d5
The more cautious 13 l:tel, transposing
to note 'c' to White's 10th
move in Line C, might be preferable.
13 ... cxdS 14 exd5 liJc5 15 liJd4
After 15 dxe6.ixe6 16 .ixe6liJxe6
17liJxb5, 17 ... l:tb8 is unclear according
to Volodin. I think I would prefer to
play 17 ... 'iib6 but see no cause for
concern for Black.
15 ... liJxb3 16 liJc6!? liJxal! 17
liJxd8 l:txd8 18 d6 .ixd6 19 'iie2 b4
20 liJe4 .ie7 21l:txal .ib7
The chances are roughly equal. The
rook and two bishops plus a pawn are
worthy contenders against White's
queen and knight, Khenkin-Vol odin,
Pardubice 1997.
C2)
10 a3 0-0 (D)
w
11 'iWc2
This flexible continuation is White's
most common approach. White keeps
his options open as to whether to play
on the queenside or in the centre. The
main question is whether the queen
should be on c2 or e2 but whereas the
queen on c2 seems to be better placed
in connection with a queenside expansion
the queen on e2 is more appropriately
used for playing in the centre.
Alternatives:

208 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
a) 11 'iWe2 a6 12 ':'acl f5 13 ttJd2!?
ttJf6 14 f3 J.d6 15 'iithl e5 16 c5 J.c7
17 dxe5 J.xe5 18 f4 J.c7 19 ttJf3 J.d7
20 ttJd4 g6 21 ':'f3 'iWe7 22 b4 with an
edge for White, Yusupov-Kramnik,
Moscow rpd 1995.
b) 11 e4!? dxc4 (ll...dxe4 12 ttJxe4
c5!? looks about equal) 12 J.xc4 c5
(12 ... b5 13 J.d3 b4 14 axb4 J.xb4 15
e5 ;I; P.Nikolic-M.Gurevich, Tilburg
1993) 13 dxc5 (13 d5 also allows Black
to equalize comfortably: 13 ... ttJb6 14
J.a2 exdS 15 ttJxd5 J.e6 16 'iWc2 J.xdS
liz-liz Haba-Grabarczyk, Koszalin 1999)
13 ... J.xc5 14 'ii'e2 a615 e5 b5 16 'iVe4
l:.a7 17 J.d3 g6 with a roughly equal
position, Dolmatov-Sveshnikov, Moscow
1985.
c) 11 l:.c 1 a6 12 e4 dxc4 13 J.xc4
b5 14 J.a2 c5 15 d5 c4 16 e5 exd5 17
'ii'xd5, Kramnik-Illescas-Alcobendas
(2) 1993, and now 17 ... l:.a7 is fine for
Black, with the idea 18 e6 ttJc5 19
exf7+ ':'xf7 20 ttJe5 'ii'xd5 21 ttJxd5
:'f5 22 f4 J.d6, which is assessed as
unclear by Kramnik. Black's main
cause for concern is whether White
has something direct; otherwise the
bishop-pair and queenside majority is
in Black's favour.
11 ... a612 b4 f5!? (D)
Black adopts the solid Stonewall
set-up to restrict White's space advantage.
These kind of positions are usually
slightly in White's favour due to
his promising queenside pressure and
the fact that Black has a horrible lightsquared
bishop that is very hard to activate.
A few other options:
a) 12 ... b5?! 13 c5 as 14 e4 dxe4 15
j.xe4 ':'a6 16 l:.adl axb4 17 axb4 'iWc7
18 l:.al ttJb8 19 ttJe5 ;I; Rogozenko­
K.Miiller, Hamburg 1998.
b) 12 ... dxc4 13 J.xc4 as (13 ... J.f6,
intending ... e5, is worth considering)
14 'iVb3! ttJb6 15 ~e5!? (White does
not mind giving up his bishop for a
knight as long as it means that he can
maintain his space advantage and
avoid Black's bishops getting more
scope) 15 ... ttJxc4 16 'ii'xc4! J.d7 17
ttJe4 j.e8 18 ttJc5 'iVc8 19 bxaS!? (this
slightly anti-positional move is played
with the aim of avoiding having the
knights kicked back after a possible
... b6 and .. .f6 by Black) 19 ... .:.xaS 20
'iWc3 l:.a7 21 ttJc4 f6 22 ttJb6 'iWc7 23
l:.abl ;I; Kramnik-Bareev, Novgorod
1994.
w
13 ttJa4!?
It is interesting that Kramnik was
willing to take the black side of a position
he had played as White a year earlier.
Kramnik-Illescas, Alcobendas (4)
1993 had continued 13 c5 J.f6 (13 ... g5

BLACK'S 8TH MOVE ALTERNATIVES 209
14 ltJe5!?, intending a bind with f4,
also seems a little better for White) 14
a4 g5 (14 ... g6, intending ... e5, gives
Black better chances of counterplay)
15 b5 a5 16ltJe2 j.g7 17 :abl and
White is slightly better.
13 ••. j.d6
13 ... b5 14 cxd5! cxd5 (14 ... bxa4 15
dxe6ltJf6 16 j.xf5 is good for White
since Black does not have time for
16 .. :iVd5 in view of 17 e4) 15 ltJc5
ltJb6 16 ltJe5 is better for White according
to Kramnik.
14ltJc5 'ii'f6 15 l:.ac1 g5 16 'ii'c3!
This instructive move shows the
importance of controlling the e5-
square in Stonewall positions.
16 ... g4 17 ltJxd7 j.xd7 18 ltJe5
j.e8 (D)
19f4?
Unfortunately White follows up his
strong 16th move with this inexplicable
error, opening up the position for
w
Black's bishops. Much better is 19 a4,
when Kramnik claims an advantage
for White.
19 ... gxf3 20 :xf3 'ifi'h8 21 :h3
:g8 22 :n :g5!
Black has good counterplay, Kamsky-Kramnik,
New York PCA Ct (3)
1994. Black is preparing to continue
... j.h5, which White in turn should
have prevented by playing 23 :f4 intending
:fh4.

17 Deviations from the Main Line
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ltJf3ltJf6 4ltJc3 e6 5
i.g5 h6 6 i.xf6 'iixf6 (D)
We have now almost reached the
end of this book, and it only remains to
cover the various deviations arising
from the Moscow Variation. These are
by no means unimportant odds and
ends, but contain several rather unusual
systems that are growing in popularity;
all the lines we examine here
are seen quite frequently. For example,
7 'iic2 is becoming increasingly
popular while White has also lately
tried 7 e3 ltJd7 8 a3, intending quick
queenside action.
Quick Summary
7 g3 (Line A) offers a gambit after
7 ... ltJd7 8 i.g2 dxc4 9 0-0 but rather
than stubbornly trying to hang on to
the pawn, Black should seek to solve
his problems in the centre, and thus
Black has been doing quite well with
the continuation 9 ... i.e7 to ltJe4 'iVf5
11 ltJed2 e5!.
With 7 'iVc2 (Line B) White intends
to play e4. While Black may simply
continue 7 ... ltJd7 8 e4 dxe4, I think
7 ... dxc4 is the most accurate. Then after
8 e3 b5 9 a4 i.b7! 10 axb5 cxb5 11
ltJxb5 i.b4+ 12ltJc3 0-013 i.e2ltJd7
140-0 Kramnik's 14 ... l:tfc8 is probably
best.
7 'iVb3 (Line C) is another way of
preparing e4, by taking away from
Black the option of ... i.b4+. Black has
several ways of replying but in particular
7 ... ltJd7 8 e4 dxe4 9 ltJxe4 'iVf4
(9 ... 'iVf5!? is probably safer) to i.d3
e5!? 11 0-0 f5 leads to complicated
play.
Finally, 7 e3 (Line D) 7 ... ltJd7 8 a3
g6 9 b4 i.g7 to cxd5 has been tried
regularly lately but Gelfand's move
to ... cxd5!? seems to equalize comfortably.
The Theory of Deviations
from the Main Line
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ltJf3 ltJf6 4ltJc3 e6 5
i.g5 h6 6 i.xf6 "xf6
Now:

DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINE 211
A: 7g3
B: 7 'it'c2
C: 7 'it'b3
D: 7e3
211
213
216
219
7 e4 is the most direct attempt but
White does not seem to achieve anything
real to compensate for the displacement
of the king after 7 ... dxe4 8
~xe4 i.b4+ 9 ~e2. Black's best is
probably 9 .. :i'f4 10 'iVc2 i.e7 11 g3
(11 ~e5?! f5! 12 ~2 'iVxd4 13 ~df3
'i'c5 14 ~g6 ':g8 15 ~xe7 'i'xe7 16 g3
e5 =+= Lautier-Kramnik, Paris rpd 1995)
1l...'iVc7 12 i.g2 c!iJd7 13 .:the1 0-0 14
~f1, Teske-Kuczynski, Aschach 1997,
and now 14 ... b6100ks fine for Black.
7 a3 prepares e4 but avoids committing
the queen as in Line B or C.
Still, it seems too slow to cause any
real concern for Black. 7 ... dxc4
(7 ... ~d7 8 e4 dxe4 9 c!iJxe4 'iVf4 10
'i'e2!? promises White some advantage;
Black should probably reply
cautiously with 1O ... i.e7 11 g3 'i'c7
12 i.g2 0-0, since in Czebe-Pinski,
Budapest 1997, Black was punished
for an audacious opening experiment:
1O ... c5?! 11 g3 'iVc7 12 d5 f5 13 dxe6
~e5 14 c!iJxe5 'iVxe5 15 'iWh5+ ..t>d8 16
0-0-0+ ..t>c7 17 c!iJc3 i.xe6 18 i.g2
with a winning attack) 8 c!iJe5 (8 e3
and 8 e4 are both illogical since after
8 ... b5 White will need to play a4,
thereby losing a tempo, to break up the
queenside) 8 ... c5 9 'iVa4+ (9 c!iJxc4
cxd4 10 c!iJb5 'iVd8 11 'iVxd4 'iVxd4 12
c!iJxd4 i.d7 13 g3 i.c5 14 c!iJb3 i.e7 15
c!iJca5 i.c6 16 ~xc6 c!iJxc6 17 i.g2
':c8 was equal in Kasparov-Sveshnikov,
USSR Ch 1981) 9 ... c!iJc6 10 e3
(10 ~xc6 i.d7 11 d5 exd5 12 c!iJxd5
'iid6 13 0-0-0 i.xc6 14 'iVxc4, with
some initiative to White, is suggested
by Wells, but I doubt that this is really
sufficient to worry Black after the further
moves 14 ... .:td8 15 ~e3 'iVf6 16
.:txd8+ 'iVxd8) 1O ... cxd4 11 exd4 i.e7
12 tDxc6 i.d7 13 i..xc4 i.xc6 14 i.b5
0-0 15 i.xc6 bxc6 = Sulava-Guido,
Verona 1997.
A)
7g3
This resembles a Catalan Opening
to some extent and is a reasonably
popular set-up in various Semi-Slav
lines. The idea is that the appearance
of a bishop on the h1-a8 diagonal will
make it more difficult for Black to develop
his own light-squared bishop,
and discourages any possible ... c5
break.
7 ... ~d7 8 i.g2 dxc4
Others:
a) 8 ... i.b4 9 0-0 0-0 10 'iVc2 'iVe7
11 a3 i.d6 12 c5 i.c7 13 e4 dxe4 14
~xe4 ':d8 15 .:tad1 c!iJf8 16 .:tfe1 i.d7
17 ~e5 i.e8 = Christiansen-Yusupov,
Bundesliga 1992/3.
b) 8 ... 'iVd8 9 0-0 i.e7 10 e4 (10
~d2 0-011 .:tel b5!? 12 cxb5 cxb5 13
e4 b4 14 ~e2 c!iJf6 15 exd5 c!iJxd5 16
c!iJf4 i..b7 was fine for Black in Adorjan-Miles,
Szeged 1997) 10 ... dxe4 11
~xe4 0-0 and now Black has not been
able to solve his problems fully after
either of White's two options:

212 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
b1) 12 Ac1 b6 (12 ... 'ii'a5!?) 13 dS!
(Black only needs to play ... .i.b7 to
stand well, but this excellent move
gives him no respite) 13 ... cxdS 14 cxdS
exdS (14 ... .i.a6 IS dxe6.i.xfl 16 'ii'xfl
fxe617lDd4lDcS!? 18lDc6! 'ii'e8 19
lDxe7+ 'fIxe7 20 lDxcs bxcS 21 .i.xa8
Axa8 22 'fIc4! ± Speelman) IS 'fIxdS
.i.a616 l:tfd1lDcS, Agdestein-Speelman,
Hastings 199112, and at this point
Speelman suggests 17 'fIhS! 'fIe8 (if
17 ... lDd3, then 18.i.fl!) 18lDeSlDxe4
(Black also comes under strong pressure
after 18 ... Ac8 19lDxcs: 19 ... .i.xcS
20 .i.dS! or 19 ... AxcS 20 l:txcS .i.xcs
21 .i.dS! .i.c8 and now, rather than
Speelman's 22 b4, 22 .i.xf7+ wins
outright) 19 .i.xe4 .i.gS (after 19 ... l:tc8
or 19 ... Ad8 White maintains the pressure
with 20 .i.c6!) 20 .i.xa8! and now,
instead of Speelman's 20 ... 'fIxa8? 21
l:tc7 ±, 20 ... 'fixeS! keeps Black in the
game.
b2) 12 cS!? b6 13 'ii'c2 'ii'c7 14
Aac1.i.b7 IS l:tfe1 Aad8 16 b4 (White
has built up typical Catalan pressure
where Black has a weak pawn on c6
and a horrible light-squared bishop;
White has a slightly weak d-pawn and
is weak on dS but Black cannot exploit
this) 16 ... lDf617lDxf6+.i.xf618 'fIc3
l:td7 19 lDeS .i.xeS 20 dxeS l:tfd8 21
'fIa3 bS 22 'fiB a5 23 a3 l:td3 24 .:te3
l:t3d4 2S l:tb1 l:t8d7 26 h4 ± Komarov­
Kramnik, USSR jr Ch (Kherson)
1991.
90-0.i.e7
Usually in the Moscow Variation,
Black retreats the queen from f6 before
developing the bishop but here Black
intends to play actively with a quick
... eS. Nevertheless, 9 ... 'fId8 also looks
perfectly playable; e.g., 10 e3 (10 e4
.i.e7 11 'fIc2, followed by Afd1 with
an active game for White, is also possible,
but the text-move should not be
underestimated) 10 ... .i.d6 11 'it'e2 0-0
12 Afd1 'We7 13 'fIxc4 eS 14 dS lDb6
IS 'ilh4! (after this strong move White
retains a small initiative due to his
better development but, as we shall
see, unfortunately not enough to
achieve anything tangible) lS ... cxdS
16 'ii'xe7 .i.xe7 17 lDxeS .i.f6 18 f4
.i.xeS 19 fxeS .i.e6 20 lDxdS lDxdS 21
.i.xdS .i.xdS 22 AxdS Aad8 23 Ad4 b6
24 Aad1 Ade8! and Black eventually
drew without too much trouble in Yermolinsky-I.Sokolov,
Wijk aan Zee
1997.
10 lDe4 'ii'f5 (D)
w
lllDed2
White regains the pawn immediately.
11 lDfd2 is worse since after
1l...lDb6! White has to work to get his

DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINE 213
pawn back, thereby allowing Black to
free his position comfortably: 12 f4
(12 a4 'iWa5 13 'iWc2 0-0 14liJxc4liJxc4
15 'iWxc4 e5 gives Black an edge according
to Sveshnikov) 12 ... 0-0 13
'iWc2.:td8 14 e3 c5 =+= Tisdall-I.Sokolov,
Torshavn 1997.
ll ... eS!
Black plays to free his position
rather than trying to hang on to the
pawn. For example, after 11 ... b5 12 a4
0-0 13 axb5 'ii'xb5 14 'ii'c2 .tb7 15
liJxc4 c5, Christiansen-M.Gurevich,
Antwerp 1993, White can, according
to M.Gurevich, keep an advantage
with 16liJa5! .txf3 17 .txf31:tac8 18
d5 exd5 19 .txd5.
12liJxc4
Black equalizes without too many
problems after this but neither does
the more dynamic 12 e4 cause much
trouble: 12 ... 'ii'e6 13 'ii'c2 (in Komarov-Renet,
French Cht 1996, White
chose 13 'iWe2; Renet replied 13 ... b5
14 a4.:tb8 15 d5 cxd5 16 exd5 'iWxd5
17 axb5 'ii'd3! with a roughly equal
game, but even here Savchenko's plan
13 ... exd4 14 liJxd4 'iWf6 looks perfectly
viable) 13 ... exd4 14liJxd4 'ii'f6
15 liJf5liJb6 16liJxe7 'iWxe7 17liJxc4
'iWc5 18 liJe3 'iWxc2 19 liJxc2 .te6 20
liJd4 .:td8 21 .:tfdl

214 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
b) 9 ... g6 (D) is the most popular
set-up in the main lines so why not
here? The only difference in the structure
is that here White has a c-pawn,
whereas in the main lines he has an e­
pawn. White has several options:
bI) 10 i.d3 i.g7 11 0-0 0-0 12
:tfe1 c5 13 d5 ttJb6 14 d6 (a doubleedged
decision as it is far from clear
whether this pawn will be strong or
weak; however, White is virtually
obliged to try it since Black obviously
solves all his problems if he is allowed
to exchange on d5, when the lightsquared
bishop wakes up) 14 ... 'iWd8!
(this is much stronger than 14 ... e5 15
'iWxe5 ir'xe5 16 tDxe5 l:r.d8 17 l:r.ad1
l:r.xd6 18 tDb5, which gave White the
initiative in Yermolinsky-Serper, Chicago
1996) 15 'iWf4 i.d7! 16 :tad1
i.c6 17 i.e4? (17 tDe5 'iWxd6 18 tDxg6
ir'xf4 19 tDxf4 is hardly a problem for
Black but is definitely an improvement
over the game continuation) 17 ... tDxc4
18 i.xc6 tDxb2 19 i.xb7 l:r.b8! and
Black regains his material investment
with interest, Atalik-Bacrot, Wijk aan
Zee 1997.
b2) 10 h4!? is more than just a
hacker's move; since Black will most
likely be thinking of castling kingside
it makes some sense to provoke a
weakness on that side. Now:
b21) 10 ... h5 11 i.d3 i.h6 12 0-0
0-013 :tad1 :td814 c5 l:r.b8 (14 ... 'iWf4?!
15 'iWe2 i.g7 16 tDe4 tDf6 17 tDd6
tDg4 18 g3 'iWf6 19 tDg5 tDh6 20 i.c4
± Kruppa-Mukhametov, Berlin 1997)
15 'iWe2 b6 16 tDe4 'iWe7 17 b4 i.f4 18
g3 i.c7 19 i.c4 a5 20 a3 ;!; Matveeva­
Prudnikova, Russian wom Ch (Elista)
1997.
b22) 10 ... i.g7 11 h5 g5 12 i.d3 c5
13 d5.!De5 (13. .. ~d8!?) 14 tDxe5 'iWxe5
150-0-0 'iWxe4 16 tDxe4 exd5 17 cxd5
i.d4 18 tDd6+ (18 :thel ~f8 19 f3
i.d7 is fine for Black) 18 ... ~e7 19
tDb5 i.e5 20 :the 1 ~f6 21 tDc3 i.g4
22 i.e2 i.f5 23 i.d3 i.g4 24 i.e2 i.f5
25 i.d3 i.g4 1/2-1/2 Matveeva-Galliamova,
Russian wom Ch (Elista) 1997.
b3) 10 c5 i.g7 11 'iWe3 0-0 12 tDe4
is one of White's best set-ups but the
move-order is inaccurate because of
12 ... 'iWd8! (the threat of ... 'iWa5+ almost
forces White's next move; otherwise
Black easily undermines the
centre) 13 0-0-0 (13 l:r.dl 'iWa5+ 14
tDc3 e5 favours Black - Lutz) 13 ... b6
14 i.c4 tDf6 15 :td2 tDxe4 16 'iWxe4
bxc5 17 dxc5 'iWa5 18 'iWe3 i.a6 19
i.xa6 'iWxa6 + Bacrot-Nogueiras, Havana
1998.
b4) 10 'iWe3 i.g7 11 tDe4 (this is a
more accurate move-order since now

DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINE 215
Black does not have the possibility of
... 'fid8 due to the annoying tiJd6+)
11...'fie7 12 c5 0-0 and then:
b41) 13 -tc4 b6 (Lutz suggests
13 ... e5!? 14 tiJd6 'fif6 15 dxe5 tiJxe5
16 tiJxe5 'fixe5 17 0-0 b5!?) 14 l:tdl as
150-0 -ta6 16 -txa6 :'xa6 is roughly
equal, Liogky-Bacrot, Corsica rpd 1997.
b42) 13 :'dl e5 14 tiJd6 'fif6 15
dxe5 tiJxe5 16 tiJxe5 'fixe5 17 -tc4 and
now 17 ... 'fixe3+ 112-112 was Babula­
Votava, Olomouc 1997, but 17 ... b5
looks interesting; Black's problems
are solved if the bishop has to retreat
and if 18 cxb6 axb6 19 tiJxf7 'fixe3+
20 fxe3 -ta6 21 tiJxh6+ ~h7 22 -txa6
:lxa6 23 tiJg4 :lxa2 Black is better.
S e3 bS 9 a4
9 tiJxb5!? is surely critical but has
for unknown reasons been largely neglected.
Wells mentions 9 ... cxb5 10
'fie4 -tb4+ 11 ~dl 0-0 12 'fixa8 -td7!
with compensation, and this does look
like Black's best try.
9 ... -tb7! 10 axbS cxbS 11 tiJxbS
-tb4+ 12 ttJc3 0-013 -te2 tiJd714 0·0
(D)
B
14 ...l::tfcS
After a series of more or less forced
moves we have come to a crossroads.
The text-move is Kramnik's preference
and this is enough to persuade me to
choose it as the main line. Black has
some minor, though probably not very
serious, problems with his c-pawn, but
the bishop-pair and altogether active
position compensate for this.
Other moves have fared reasonably
well in practice but there may be a reason
for Kramnik avoiding them. The
question is: had he noted a problem
with the main lines or did he just want
to win?
a) 14 .. J:t£d8 15 tiJd2 (15 tiJe4 'ii'g6
16 'fixc4!?) 15 ... e5 16 -tf3! -txf3 17
tiJxf3 'iWe6 (Stohl-Sveshnikov, Leningrad
1984) and now White can keep
an edge with 18 :'fdl according to
Sveshnikov.
b) 14 ... e5Iooks very drawish based
on practical examples, but I think
White may have an improvement here:
bl) 15 dxe5 tiJxe5 16 tiJxe5 'ii'xe5
17 -txc4 :'ac8 (17... aS 18 :'fdl :'ac8
19 'fib3 -txc3 20 bxc3 -txg2 21 ~xg2
'fie4+ 22 f3 'fixc4 23 'ii'xc4 :'xc4 24
:'xaS :'xc3 25 e4 112-1/2 Gustafsson­
Pavasovic, Bled 1999) 18 'ii'b3 (18
-te2 -txc3 19 bxc3 :'xc3 20 'ii'b2
:'xe3 21 'ii'xb7 :'xe2 22 'ii'xa7 liz-liz
Guseinov-Sveshnikov, Volgodonsk
1983) 18 ...-txg2! (this crafty move just
seems to force a draw) 19 -txf7+! (19
~xg2 -txc3 20 bxc3 'ii'e4+ is similar
to the Gustafsson-Pavasovic liquidation
above, while 19 'ii'xb4 'ii'g5 20 f4

216 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SIA V
'ili'g4 21 i.e2 i.f3+ 22 ~f2 'ili'g2+ 23
~el i.xe2 24 lLlxe2 ':c2 looks sufficiently
dangerous to secure a draw)
19 .. .1hf7 20 l:txa7 i.xfl 21 'ili'xf7+
~h7 22 'iftxfl i.xc3 23 'ili'd7! (23 bxc3
l:txc3 is just equal as White's king is
too exposed to make any winning attempts
realistic) 23 ... i.d4! (this brilliant
move had to be foreseen on move
18; if 23 ... l:tc5, 24 'ili'd3+ ~g8 25 bxc3
gives White good winning chances as
suddenly it is Black's king that is exposed)
24 'ii'xd4 l::tel+ 25 ~g2 'ii'g5+
26 ~f3 'ii'f5+ 27 'ii'f4 'ii'h3+ 28 'ii' g3
'ii'fS+ 29 'iftg2 'ii'dS+ 30 'ifth3 'fihS+
31 ~g2 'ii'dS+ 112_112 Lautier-Illescas,
Khalkidhiki 1992.
b2) 15 i.xc4!? (could this be the
reason for Kramnik avoiding 14 ... e5?;
at any rate I am surprised White has
not tried it yet) 15 ... i.xf3 16 gxf3 exd4
(16 ... 'iIi'xf3 17 i.dS 'ii'g4+ 18 ~hl
l::tad8 19 l:tg 1 'ii'hS 20 l:tg3! ±) 17lLld5
'ii'g5+ 18 ~hl i.d6 (18 ... 'iIi'h5 19 'ii'dl!
lLleS 20 l:tgl 'ii'xf3+ 21 'ii'xf3lLlxf3 22
lLlxb4lLlxgl 23 ~xgl with the better
ending for White) 19 f4 'fihS 20 'ii'dl
'ii'xdl 21 l:tfxdl ~.
15 l:tfc1
Others do not promise anything:
a) 15 l::tfdl as 16lLld2lLlb617 i.f3
lLld5 18 lLlde4 'ii'e7 19 lLla4 l::tab8 20
lLlec5 i.c6 21 l:tdel i.b5 22 h3 'ii'd8
23 i.e2 c3 24 lLlxc3 lLlxc3 25 bxc3
i.xc5 26 dxc5 l:txcS 27 i.xbS ':bxb5
28 l:ta4 = Lacrosse-Novikov, Antwerp
1996.
b) 15 lLld2lLlb6 16 i.f3 lLld5 17
l::tfel as 18 'ii'dl'fie7 19 i.e2lLlb6 20
lLlf3 i.d5 21 lLleS i.d6 22 lLlf3 'ii'b7
and Black is slightly better, Bjerke­
Agdestein, Norwegian Ch 1986.
IS ... aS 16 lLla4 l::tabS 17 'iidl eS!
With this pawn sacrifice Black
solves most of his problems and leaves
White with a worthless extra pawn.
ISl:txc4
18 dxeS?! is wrong due to 18 ... lLlxe5
19 lLlxe5 'ii'xeS and Black obtains
promising attacking chances in view
of his powerful bishops. For example,
if 20 l:txc4 then 20 ... l::txc4 21 i.xc4
i.d6 22 g3 'fie4, so White must already
think about equalizing; 20 'ili'd4
is probably best.
IS ... l::txc4 19 i.xc4
112-112 Beliavsky-Kramnik, Dortmund
1998. 19 ... i.xf3 20 'fixf3 'ii'xf3
21 gxf3 exd4 22 exd4 lLlb6 23 lLlxb6
l::txb6 is completely equal.
C)
7 'iib3 (D)
B
As pointed out earlier, Black's
chances are probably slightly better in

DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINE 217
the long run in view of his possession
of the bishop-pair. Therefore White
should seek to utilize his space advantage,
and with the text-move White attempts
to make this more apparent by
preparing e4. Of course, the immediate
7 e4 can be met by 7 ... dxe4 8lDxe4
i.b4+, so by taking away the ... i.b4+
option from Black, White argues that
he is now ready for e4.
7 ... lDd7
Black has two alternatives:
a) 7 ... dxc4 (it is of course also possible
to capture this way after White
has played e4, but by playing it immediately
Black assures that White has to
recapture with the queen) 8 'iWxc4lDd7
and now:
al) 9 e4 e5 10 d5 lDb6 11 'iWb3
i.c5 12 i.e2 i.g4 13 0-0 i.xf3 14
i.xf3 0-0 15 .:tac1 .:tac8 16 i.g4 .:tc7
= Kishnev-Lukacs, Budapest 1991.
a2) 9 .:tdl. This is aimed against
Black's freeing advance ... e5; if, for
example, 9 ... e5?, then 10 dxe5 lDxe5
11 'iWe4 i.d6 12 lhd6 wins; hence
Black has two options:
a21) 9 ... g6 10 g3 i.g7 11 i.h3 0-0
120-0 'iWe7 (with the idea ... lDb6 followed
by ... c5) 13lDe4 .:tb8 14 a3 .:te8
15 b4 a5! 16lDc5 axb417 axb4 .:ta8
with an equal position, Timman-I.Sokolov,
Dutch Ch (Rotterdam) 1997.
a22) 9 ... 'iWe7 (Black improves the
position of his queen and intends
... 'iWb4) 10 'iWb3 g6 11 e4 i.g7 12 e5
0-0 13 lDe4 c5 14 dxc5 lDxc5 15 'iWa3
b6 = Brenninkmeijer-Novikov, New
York 1993.
a3) 9 g3 with a further branch:
a31) 9 ... 'fIe7 1O.tg2 'ti'b411 'ii'xb4
(l1liJd2? 'fIxb2! 12 .l:tbl 'iWa3 13 0-0
lDb6 14 'iWd3 i.e7 15lDc4 'ii'a6! + Shirov-Anand,
Linares 1994) 11...i.xb4
120-00-013 .l:tac1.l:td8 14 a3 i.e7 15
.:tfd 1 lDf8 16 lDe5 .td7 17 lDe4 i.e8
18 e3 .l:tac8 = Gulko-Chernin, New
York 1998.
a32) 9 ... e5 lO O-O-O!? (other moves
promise Black an easy game) lO ... i.e7
l1lDe4 'ii'f5 12 'ii'c2 0-0 13 h4!? (13
~bllDf6! =) 13 ... exd4 14lDxd4 'ii'a5
15 ~bllDf616 e3lDd5 17 a3 i.g4! =
Timman-Gelfand, Belgrade 1995.
b) 7 ... a5 renews the possibility of
... i.b4+ after White plays e4, but
with dl available for his king, White
should probably try it anyway. 8 e4
(the most consistent, although 8 a3 is a
viable alternative; then 8 ... a4 9lDxa4
dxc4 lO 'ii'c2 'ii'd8 11 .:tdl b5 12lDc3
lDd7 13 e4lDb6 14 i.e2 i.b7 150-0
i.e7 16 d5!? exd5 17 exd5 lDxd5 18
a4 led to unclear play in S.Pedersen­
Cu. Hansen, Odense rpd 1996) 8 ... dxe4
9lDxe4 i.b4+ lO 'iitdl (10 'ii'xb4 axb4
11 lDxf6+ gxf6 is roughly equal)
lO ... 'ii'f4 11 i.d3 (11 'ii'e3 'ii'xe3 12
fxe3 i.e7 13 c5 lDd7 is, in spite of
White's space advantage, fine for
Black, who can break with either ... b6
or ... e5) 11...f5 (11...i.e7 12 lDe5 h5
13 g3 'ii'h6 14 'ii'b6! was very good for
White in Stohl-Kuczynski, Budapest
Z 1993) 12lDg3 c5! 13 a3 a4 14 'ii'c2
i.a5 15 lDe2! (15 'ti'xa4+?! i.d7 16
'iWc2 cxd4 and now 17 lDe2?! 'ii'g4!
was clearly better for Black in the

218 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
game Novikov-Dreev, Lvov Z 1990;
even after the superior 17 'ir'c1 'ir'xc 1 +
18 l:txc1 liJc6 Dreev believes Black
has the better prospects) 15 ... 'ir'd6 (after
15 ... 'ir'g4 16liJe5! 'ir'xg2 17 l::tgl
'ir'xf2 18 'ir'xa4+ liJd7 19 b4 cxd4 20
l:txg7 White had a winning attack in
Novikov-Strokov, Alicante 1992) 16
'ir'xa4+ ~d7 17 'ir'c2 cxd4 18 c5 is
good for White - Stohl.
8 e4 dxe4 9 liJxe4 (D)
B
9 ... 'ir'f4
This is clearly the most ambitious
move for Black. By attacking the e4-
knight, Black wins a tempo to prepare
... e5. This is strategically very attractive
for Black, since with an open position
Black's bishops will soon excel.
However, the disadvantage is that
Black falls behind in development due
to the many queen moves and the
queen may also feel herself rather exposed
so far forward.
A safe alternative is 9 ... 'ir'f5 10 ~d3
'ir'a5+; my intuition tells me that Black
should be doing fairly OK here. For
example, 11 liJc3 (11 ~f1, as in Rylander-Ziegler,
Swedish Ch (Haninge)
1997, is perhaps worth investigating;
after 1l...~e7 12 l:tel liJf6 13 liJg3
'ii'b6 14 'ir'c2 c5 15 d5 exd5 16 cxd5
liJxd5 17 ~c4, Black came under
pressure but was able to avert the danger
after 17 ... liJb4 18 'ir'e4 liJc6 19
~d5 'ir'c7 20 liJh5 g6 21 liJg3 ~f8)
l1...e5! (11...~b4 12 0-0 ~xc3 13
bxc3 0-0 14 l:tfel 'ir'c7 15 l:tadl b6 16
~bl %:.d8 17 'ir'c2liJf8 18liJe5 ~b7
19 f4!? gave White an edge in Jasnikowski-Roogaard,
Arhus 1996) 120-0
exd4 13 :'fel + ~e7 14 liJxd4liJc5 15
'ir'c2 'ir'd8! with at least equality.
IO~d3
Timman's suggestion, 10 liJfd2!?,
intending to fianchetto the bishop, was
tried in Hillarp-Persson - Cu.Hansen,
Reykjavik 1998, but Black was able to
equalize following 10 ... ~e7 11 g3
'ir'c712~g2e5! 13d5f514liJc3liJc5
15 'ir'c2 e4 160-00-0 17 l:tadl ~f6 18
liJb3 liJxb3 19 'ir'xb3 'ir'b6 20 'ir'a3
~xc3 21 'ir'xc3 cxd5 22 l::txd5 ~e6 23
l::td4 %:.ad8 24 l::tfdl :'xd4 25 l::txd4
'ir'c5 26 b3 a5.
IO ... eS!?
10 ... ~e7 is more solid but slightly
passive; e.g., 11 0-00-0 12 :'fel and
now:
a) 12 ... l:td8 13 :'adl 'ir'c7 14 ~bl
liJf8 15 c5! b5 16 liJg3 ~d7 17 'ir'e3
~e818~c2a519a3l:ta720h4witha
promising position for White, Smyslov-Petrosian,
Moscow 1971.
b) 12 ... c5 13 :'adl cxd4 14liJxd4
liJc5 (14... l::td8!? is probably a more

DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINE 219
accurate move) lSltJxcS i.xcs 16ltJf3
b6 17 i.e4 l:b8 18 'irc2 ;! Lengyel­
Dely, Hungarian Ch 1965.
11 0-0 (D)
B
claim some compensation according
to Kishnev.
D)
7 e3ltJd7
I see no point in avoiding this since
the knight is the only piece whose best
square can already be established.
8 a3 (D)
1l ... f5
1l...i.e7 121tfe1 exd4 13ltJg3ltJcS
14 'ira3 and now 14 ... 'ird6?! IS i.fS!
gave White the better chances in Timman-Gelfand,
Wijk aan Zee 1996 but
even after the stronger 14 ... ltJe6 Timman
thinks that White obtains fairly
decent compensation with IS cS.
12ltJg3
12 ':Ue1 fxe4 13 ':'xe4 'irf7 14 :tae1
~d8 is unclear according to R.-A.Simon
but I would put my money on
Black's defensive resources; the king
is about to escape, and IS dxeS ltJcs
16 ':'d4+ ~c7 does not lead to anything.
12 .•• e413 :tfel ~d814 i.xe4 fxe4
15 ':'xe4 ikf7 16 'ifc2!?
So far we have been following the
game Kishnev-R.-ASimon, Budapest
1989, and now after 16 ... i.d6 17 ':'ae1
ltJf6 18ltJeS i.xeS 191heS White can
The keyword here is 'flexibility'.
White awaits Black's set-up before
committing to a strategy himself, while
simultaneously airing the possibility
of a queenside advance.
8 ... g6
As in the main lines, a fianchetto of
the dark-squared bishop is Black's
most popular set-up. The other main
line is 8 ... 'ird8, reacting in similarly
flexible fashion. Then 9 'irc2 (9 e4 is
rather illogical and should not worry
Black: 9 ... dxe4 10 lLlxe4 i.e7 11 'ii'd2
cS 12 0-0-0 0-0 13 dxcS 'irc7 14 ~b1
ltJxcs IS 'ii'e3 b6 16 ltJc3 i.b7 with
slightly the better prospects for Black,
Korchnoi-Kramnik, Groningen PCA

220 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
qual 1993) 9 ... .te7 10 .td3 0-011 0-0
a6 gives White a choice between:
a) 12 l:tacl l:tb8!? (12 ... f5!?) 13
l:tfdl b5 14 cxd5 cxd5 15 e4 dxe4 16
.txe4 .td6! = Tukmakov-Illescas,
Wijk aan Zee 1993.
b) 12 liJe2 .td6 (12 ... b5 13 cxd5
cxd5 14 l:tfel is much better for
White) 13 c5 (13 l:tacl f5!?) 13 ... .tb8
14 e4 e5 15 l:tadl f5?! (very ambitious
but probably too loosening; 15 ... dxe4
16 .txe4 exd4 17 liJexd4 'ii'f6 would
to a large extent have solved Black's
problems with his bishops) 16 exd5 e4
17 d6! exf3 (17 ... exd3 18 'ii'xd3 liJf6
19 liJe5 .txd6 20 cxd6 'iixd6 21 liJf4
± Anand) 18liJf4liJf6 19 l:tfe1 .txd6
20 cxd6 'iixd6 21 g3 ± Ivanchuk­
Anand, Linares 1992.
9b4!?
Other options are:
a) 9 cxd5 exd5 10 b4 is regarded as
less accurate than the main lines since
Black has a chance to switch plans
with 1O ... .td6!? Then 11 .td3 'ii'e7
12 0-0 liJf6 13 b5 c5! 14 dxc5 .txc5
15 'iib3 .te6 16liJd4 O-O!? 17 liJxe6
'ii'xe6 is roughly equal, Van Wely­
M.Gurevich, 2nd Bundesliga 1995/6.
b) 9 e4!? dxe4 10 liJxe4 'iif4 is
similar to the line arising from 7 a3 except
that here Black's g-pawn is on g6.
11 .td3 (11 'ii'e2!?) 11.. . .tg7 12 0-0
0-013 l:te1 and then:
b1) 13 ... e5? 14 g3 'iig4 (14 ... 'iif5
15liJd6 'iie6 16 c5 gives White a substantial
advantage due to his magnificent
knight on d6 and Black's trouble
finding a place for his queen) 15liJd6!
exd4 16 l:te41i'h3 17 .tn ir'h5 18 b4!
g5 (the only move, as otherwise the
queen is simply trapped) 19 liJxd4!
'ii'xdl 20 l:txdl ± Tukmakov-M.Gurevich,
Wijk aan Zee 1993.
b2) 13 ... c5! 14 dxc5 (14 liJxc5
liJxc5 15 dxc5 .txb2 16 l:tbl .tc3 17
'ii'cl 'ii'xel 18 l:texcl .tf6 is roughly
equal, Cvitan-Chernin, Bern 1996)
14 ... .txb2 15 l:tb1 .tg7 16.tn ir'c7!
17 'ii'd6 'ii'xd6 18 cxd6 b6, intending
... .ta6 and ... l:tac8, favours Black,
Petursson-Serper, Oslo 1994.
9 ..• .tg7
9 ... dxc4 10 .txc4 .tg7 11 0-00-0
gives White a tempo-up version of
Line B3 of Chapter 15, but the extra
move is a3, which in practice may not
count for that much.
10 cxdS cxdS!?
This relatively recent idea of Gelfand's
seems to equalize comfortably.
The alternative 1O ... exd5 gives White
better chances of an advantage: 11
.td3 0-0 120-0 liJb6 13 ir'b3 'iid6 14
l:tfel.te615liJd2l:tfb8!? 16l:tabl a5!
17 bxa5 liJd7 18 a4 l:txa5 19 'iic2!, intending
liJb3 and a5 with an edge for
White, Piket-Dreev, WijkaanZee 1996.
11 .td3 0-0 12 0-0 'ike7 13 'ikb3
liJb6 14 a4 .td7 IS as
15 liJd2 liJc8 16 l:tfel liJd6 17 b5
l:tfc8 18 a5 'ii'd8 19 'iib2 e5! does not
promise White anything either, Van
Wely-Gelfand, Tilburg 1996.
IS ..• liJc8 16 l:tac1 liJd6 17 l:tc2
l:tfc8 18 l:tfc1 bS!
Black is at least equal, Ki.Georgiev-Gelfand,
Belgrade 1997.

18 Odds and Ends
A few things need to be mentioned as
a final note. First of all, white-players
who have built up their courage to play
S .tgS may be in for a disappointment
if faced by S ... ttJbd7 or S ... .te7. Both
lines may lead to a Classical Queen's
Gambit Declined (though Black's early
... c6 is a slight concession) or a Cambridge
Springs in the case of S ... ttJbd7.
Here this book will not be able to help
as these systems are really outside the
scope of it.
It is worth mentioning that S ... ~b6?!
leads Black into some trouble. After 6
~c2, Black has no good way to justify
the queen move, as after 6 ... ttJe4 7
ttJxe4 dxe4 8 cS! he loses a pawn for
inadequate compensation.
Finally, there is the line 1 d4 dS 2 c4
c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 e6 S .tgS dxc4
(S ... h6 6 .th4 dxc4 7 e4 gS 8 .tg3 bS 9
eS leads to the same thing) 6 e4 bS 7 eS
h6 8 .th4 gS 9 .tg3 (D).
This has not been covered so far in
the book, and might not be that good
but has the practical advantage from
White's viewpoint that it can be used
against both the Botvinnik and the
Moscow Variation.
B
Black's best is probably 9 ... ttJdS 10
h4 ~a5! 11 :c1 .tb4 12 ~c2 (after 12
~d2 g4 13 tiJh2 hS Black has achieved
a very good version of the Alatortsev
Variation!) 12 ... gxh4 13 .txh4 'ii'xa2
and White did not have compensation
for the pawn in Gerber-Shabalov,
Geneva 1992. There are quieter attempts
for White, such as 10 .te2 or
10 ttJd2, but neither promises anything.
For a better feeling of this type
of position, the reader is invited to
'study Chapter 14, The Anti-Moscow
Variation. Here White is very often reluctant
to play eS since this loses a lot
of his dynamism, whilst it is not that
easy to exploit the dark squares.

Index of Variations
Chapter Guide
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tDf3 tDf6 4 tDc3 e6 5
i.g5 dxc4
Rare 5th moves for Black - Chapter
18
5 ... h6 6 i.xf6 (6 i.h4!? - Chapter 14)
6 ... li'xf67 e3 (other moves - Chapter
17) 7 ... tDd7 8 i.d3 dxc4 (other moves
- Chapter 16) 9 i.xc4 - Chapter 15
6e4
Other moves - Chapter 12
6 ... b57 e5
7 a4 - Chapter 11
7 •.. h6 8 i.h4 g5 9 tDxg5
9 exf6!? - Chapter 10
9 .•• hxg5
9 ... tDd5?! - Chapter 9
10 i.xg5 tDbd7
10 ... i.e7 - Chapter 8
11 exf6
11 g3 i.b7 (l1...'ii'aS - Chapter 6;
other moves - Chapter 7) 12 i.g2 'ii'b6
(other moves - Chapter 7) 13 exf6 -
see 11 exf6
11 ... i.b7
ll...li'aS - Chapter 6
12 g3 c5
Other moves - Chapter 7
13 d5 'ilib6
Other moves - Chapter 5
14 i.g2 0-0-0
Other moves - Chapter 7
15 0-0 b4 16 tDa4
161:tb1 - Chapter 4
16 .. JlVb5
16 .. :~a6 and 16 .. :~d6 - Chapter 3
17 a3 - Chapter 2
Other moves - Chapter 7
2: The Main Line: 17 a3
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tDf3 tDf6 4 tDc3 e6 5
i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 i.h4 g5 9
tDxg5 hxg5 10 i.xg5 tDbd7 11 exf6
i.b7 12 g3 'ilib6 13 i.g2 c5 14 d5
0-0-0150-0 b416 tDa4 'ii'b517 a314
A: 17 ... tDe514
B: 17 ... tDb820
C: 17 ... exd524 18 axb4 24
C1: 18 ... cxb4 25
C2: 18 ... d4!? 29
3: 16 .. :iVa6 and 16 .. :tli'd6
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tDf3 tDf6 4 tDc3 e6 5
i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 i.h4 g5 9
tDxg5 hxg5 10 i.xg5 tDbd7 11 exf6
i.b7 12 g3 'ii'b6 13 i.g2 c5 14 d5
0-0-0 15 0-0 b4 16 tDa4
A: 16 .. :iVd6 38
B: 16 ... 'ilia639
B1: 17 a3 39
B2: 17 dxe6! 41
4: Uhlmann's 16 .l:.bl
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tDf3 tDf6 4 tDc3 e6 5
i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 i.h4 g5 9

INDEX OF VARIATIONS 223
ttJxg5 hxg5 10 .txg5 ttJbd7 11 exf6
.tb7 12 g3 'ii'b6 13 .tg2 c5 14 d5
0-0-0150-0 b4 16 ':'b146
A: 16 ... .th646
B: 16 ... 'ii'a6 47 17 dxe6 .txg2 18 e7
.txfi 49
B1: 191i'd5 51
B2: 19 'iitxfl 54
5: Black's 13th Move Alternatives
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 e6 5
.tg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .th4 g5 9
ttJxg5 hxg5 10 .txg5 ttJbd7 11 exf6
.tb7 12 g3 c5 13 d5 58
A: 13 .•. ttJb6 59
B: 13 ••• ttJe560
c: 13 ... ttJxf6 62
D: 13 ... .th6 68 14 .txh6 ':'xh6 68
D1: 15 .tg2 68
D2: 15~d2 69
D21: 15 ... .:.xf6 70
D22: 15 .. :ti'xf6 71
D221: 16 ttJe4 72
D222: 16 0-0-0 73
6: Ideas with ... 'ii'a5
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 e6 5
.tg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .th4 g5 9
ttJxg5 hxg5 10 .txg5 ttJbd7 11 g3 (11
exf6 'ii'a5 78) 11 ... 1i'aS 12 exf6 80
A: 12 ... b4 80
B: 12 ..• .ta681
7: Move-orders and Various
Deviations
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 e6 5
.tg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .th4 g5 9
ttJxg5 hxg5 10 .txg5 ttJbd7
A: l1g387
AI: 11 ... b4?! 87
A2: 11 .. J:tg8 88
A21: 12 .txf6 89
A22: 12 h4 9112 ... .I:r.xg5 13 hxg5 ttJd5
14 g6 fxg615 ~g4! 'fIIe791
A221: 16 .I:r.h8 92
A222: 16 'ii'xg6+ 93
A223: 16 .tg2 95
B: 11 exf6 9811 ... .tb712 g3 98
B 1: 12 ... 'ii'c798
B2: 12 ... 'ii'b6 9913 .tg2 0-0-0 140-0
100
B21: 14 ... ttJe5 100
B22: 14 ... c5 101
B23: 14 ... .th6 102
B3: 12 •.. c5 103
8: 10 ... .te7
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 ttJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 e6 5
.tg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .th4 g5 9
ttJxg5 hxg5 10 .txg5 .te7 108 11 exf6
.txf6108
A: 12 .txf610912 .. :.wxf6109
AI: 13 a4109
A2: 13 g3110
B: 12.te3113
9: Alatortsev's 9 ... ttJd5?!
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tiJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 e6 5
.tg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .th4 g5 9
ttJxg5 tiJd5?! 118
A: 10 tiJf3 118
B: 10 ttJxf7! 120 10 ... 'ii'xh411 ttJxh8
.tb4120
B1: 12 'ii'd2!? 121
B2: 12 ];lc1! 124
10: White Gambits: 9 exf6!?
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tiJf3 ttJf6 4 ttJc3 e6 5

224 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 i.h4 g5
9 exf6!? 129 9 ... gxh4 10 lDe5 'tli'xf6
130
A: 11 g3130
B: 11 i.e2 132
C: 11 a4134
Cl: l1...cS 134
C2: 11 ... i.b7 136
C3: l1...h3!? 138
11: 7 a4
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lDf3 lDf6 4 lDc3 e6 5
i.g5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 a4 141
A: 7 ... b4141
B: 7 ... i.b7 142
C: 7 ... i.b4144
D: 7 ... 'tli'b6147
12: Early Deviations (6 e3 and 6
a4)
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lDf3 lDf6 4 lDc3 e6 5
i.g5 dxc4 151
A: 6e3151
B:6a4153
14: The Anti-Moscow Variation: 6
i.h4!?
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lDf3 lDf6 4 lDc3 e6 5
i.g5 h6 6 i.h4!? dxc4 1597 e4 g5 8
i.g3 b5 9 i.e2 162
A: 9 ••• b4?! 164
B: 9 ... i.b4!? 167
C: 9 ••• i.b7 169
Cl: 10 0-0170
C2: 10 eS172
C3: 10 h4! 173
D: 9 •.. lDbd7!? 177
15: The Main Line: 7 e3 lDd7 8 i.d3
dxc4
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lDf3 lDf6 4 lDc3 e6 5
~g5 h6 6 ~xf6 'tli'xf6 7 e3 lDd7 8 ~d3
dxc4 9 i.xc4 188
A: 9 ... i.d6188
B: 9 ... g6 192 100-0 i.g7 192
Bl: 11 l:tc1192
B2: 11 e4196
B3: 11 b4199
16: Black's 8th Move Alternatives
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lDf3 lDf6 4 lDc3 e6 5
~g5 h6 6 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 7 e3 lDd7 8
~d3203
A: 8 •.• g6203
B: 8 ... ~d6204
C: 8 ... 'tli'd8 206 9 0-0 i.e7 206
Cl: 10 e4 206
C2: 10 a3 207
17: Deviations from the Main Line
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lDf3 lDf6 4 lDc3 e6 5
i.g5 h6 6 i.xf6 'tli'xf6 210
A: 7 g3 211
B: 7 'tli'c2 213
C: 7'iWb3 216
D: 7e3219
18: Odds and Ends
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lDf3 lDf6 4 lDc3 e6 5
~g5 221
S ... lDbd7 or S ... i.e7 221
S ... 'tli'b6?! 221
S ... h6 6 ~h4 dxc4 7 e4 gS 8 i.g3 bS 9
eS or S ... dxc4 6 e4 bS 7 eS h6 8 i.h4
gS 9 i.g3 221

The Semi-Slav has been one of the most topical openings of the last decade, and its most
critical variation is the Botvinnik System (5 Bg5 dxc4). Most of today's top grandmasters,
including Kasparov, Kramnik and Shirov, have relied on it as Black, White or both,
especially in make-or-break situations.
Black creates immediate imbalance by establishing a big queens ide majority, at the cost of
major damage to his kingside. Black tends to possess the long-term trumps, so the main
lines see White launching a massive attack against the black king . Black's standard
response is counterattack, and positions with bizarre material imbalances arise almost as
a matter of course.
To play such an opening successfully, one requires a firm grounding in the underlying
principles (such as there are!) and a detailed knowledge of specific variations. This book
provides both. The author is a well-known theoretician and player who has had a strong
interest in the Botvinnik System fo r many years - for instance the move 18 .. . d4, which
became the 'main line' in 1998, was first suggested by Pedersen in 1994.
Pedersen also discusses in depth the Moscow Variation (5 Bg5 h6), which is a calmer
option for Black, and a favourite of Anand and Dreev. This book therefore provides
comprehensive coverage of 5 Bg5 versus the Semi-Slav.
Steffen Pedersen is a young international master from Denmark. He achieved a
grandmaster norm when he was 16, and played in several World and European junior
championships. In 1998 he was joint winner of the Hampstead Grandmaster tournament.
He has written several highly-regarded opening books, with subjects including the Dutch
Defence, Sicilian Scheveningen and the Benko Gambit.
Other titles from Gambit Publications include:
Vishy Anand: My Best Games of Chess
VishyAnand
The Gambit Guide to the Bogo-Indian
Steffen Pedersen
Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy
John Watson
The Gambit Guide to the Benko Gambit
Steffen Pedersen
The Gambit Guide to the Torre Attack
Graham Burgess
The Gambit Guide to the English Opening: 1 ... e5
Carsten Hansen
The Road to Chess Improvement
Alex Yermolinsky
101 Attacking Ideas in Chess
Joe Gallagher
£14.99
ISBN 1-901 S
us at:
9
I
781901
II""
983265
111111 'II