Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

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