Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

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.