Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

bernard.paul.guinto
from bernard.paul.guinto More from this publisher
21.10.2019 Views

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

130 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLA V<br />

although Black should often enter this<br />

kind of transaction) but it is also ideally<br />

placed for attacking purposes<br />

against the sensitive f7 -square.<br />

lO ..:iVxf6<br />

<strong>The</strong>re are various other moves to<br />

consider but this is the most trustworthy.<br />

Black collects a second pawn and<br />

simultaneously gets rid of the annoying<br />

f6-pawn, which makes normal development<br />

hard for Black. For instance,<br />

1O ... ttJd7? (and some of the other alternatives)<br />

runs into 11 ttJxf7!. Of the<br />

more reliable alternatives, 10 ....:gS!?<br />

is worth looking at: 11 ~e2 (perhaps<br />

11 g3 ttJd7 12 ~g2 ~b7 13 0-0 ttJxe5<br />

14 dxe5 'fIc7 15 .:tel is more accurate)<br />

11...ttJd7 (the point; Black has ruled<br />

out the sacrifice on f7, so he can immediately<br />

begin the attack on the e5-<br />

knight) 12 ~f3 (12 ttJxc6 'tib6 13 ~f3<br />

~b7 14 d5 ttJxf6 looks good for<br />

Black) 12 ... ~b7 (12... ttJxe5!? 13 dxe5<br />

'tic7 14 0-0 ~b7 15 .:tel gives White<br />

good compensation but might be even<br />

better with the pawn on g3 and bishop<br />

on g2, cf. 11 g3) 13 ~xc6 (13 O-O!?)<br />

13 ... ~xc6 14 ttJxc6 'fIc7 15 d5 ttJc5<br />

(15 ... ttJxf6 is worth considering) 16<br />

0-0 'fIf4 17 ~h 1 ttJd3 IS dxe6. Both<br />

sides are walking on a tightrope, and<br />

now, rather than lS ... ~c5?, as in Ikonnikov-Stojanovski,<br />

Plovdiv 1990, Ikonnikov<br />

suggests that Black can play<br />

"IS....:txg2!! 19 exf7+ ~xf7! 20 ~xg2<br />

~d6 21 'ii'h5+ ~e6! 22 'fId5+ ~d7 23<br />

ttJe5+ 'fIxe5! 24 'fIxe5 ~xe5 with<br />

compensation" - perhaps true in the<br />

final position but 24 'fIxb5+! is more<br />

accurate, when White has an advantage.<br />

Returning to the position after<br />

1O ... 'fIxf6 (D):<br />

w<br />

White has the following options:<br />

A: 11 g3 130<br />

B: 11 ~e2 132<br />

C: 11 a4 134<br />

A)<br />

11 g3<br />

White intends to deploy his bishop<br />

on the hI-aS diagonal. While the<br />

bishop would be safest on g2, White<br />

could also adopt the same plan with 11<br />

~e2 (Line B), intending to put the<br />

bishop on f3. This has a further advantage<br />

compared to 11 g3, namely that<br />

sometimes White can begin an attack<br />

against f7 by playing ~h5.<br />

11 ... ttJd7!?<br />

Challenging the e5-knight has been<br />

the most common defence for Black.<br />

Incidentally, in Line B, 11 ~e2 ttJd7:<br />

White can capture on c6, whereas this<br />

would be an error in this particular

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!