Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

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 !?