Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)
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
- Page 89 and 90: MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS
- Page 91 and 92: MOVE-ORDERS AND VAR,OUS DEVIATIONS
- Page 93 and 94: MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS
- Page 95 and 96: MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS
- Page 97 and 98: MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS
- Page 99 and 100: MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS
- Page 101 and 102: MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS
- Page 103 and 104: MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS
- Page 105 and 106: MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS
- Page 107 and 108: MOVE-ORDERS AND VARIOUS DEVIATIONS
- Page 109 and 110: lO ... j.e7 107 his own best defend
- Page 111 and 112: JO ... .i.e7 109 A) 12 .txf6 'iVxf6
- Page 113 and 114: JO ... iJ.e7 111 a) 150-00-0-016 a4
- Page 115 and 116: lO ... J..e7 113 19 .. Jhd4 20 axb5
- Page 117 and 118: 1O ... i.e7 115 13 ... .te7 (D) 13
- Page 119 and 120: ALATORTSEV'S 9 . ..lijd5?! 117 Blac
- Page 121 and 122: ALATORTSEV'S 9.JiJd5?! 119 13 ... .
- Page 123 and 124: ALATORTSEV'S 9 ... 0,d5?! 121 'ti'c
- Page 125 and 126: ALATORTSEV'S 9."tiJd5?! 123 e-pawn:
- Page 127 and 128: ALATORTSEV'S 9 . ..tiJd5?! 125 is a
- Page 129 and 130: 10 White Gambits: 9 exf6!? 1 d4 d5
- Page 131 and 132: WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 129 B Bello
- Page 133 and 134: WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 131 positio
- Page 135 and 136: WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 133 White h
- Page 137 and 138: WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 135 12 .. :
- Page 139: WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 137 tZ:lc6
- Page 143 and 144: 11 7 a4 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlf3 lLl
- Page 145 and 146: 7 a4 143 w After the forced 8 ... h
- Page 147 and 148: 7 a4 145 b) 10 exf6 gxh4 11 ~eS cS!
- Page 149 and 150: 7 a4 147 There seems to be no way t
- Page 151 and 152: 7 a4 149 on such a peculiar rook mo
- Page 153 and 154: 12 Early Deviations (6 e3 and 6 a4)
- Page 155 and 156: EARLY DEVIATIONS (6 e3 AND 6 a4) 15
- Page 157 and 158: EARLY DEVIATIONS (6 e3 AND 6 a4) 15
- Page 159 and 160: 14 The Anti-Moscow Variation: 6 Jth
- Page 161 and 162: THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 .i.h4!
- Page 163 and 164: THE ANTI-MOSCOW VARIATION: 6 Ji.h4!
- Page 165 and 166: THE ANTI-MOSCOW VARIATION: 6 iLh4!?
- Page 167 and 168: THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 ~h4!?
- Page 169 and 170: THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 i&.h4!
- Page 171 and 172: THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 ~h4!?
- Page 173 and 174: THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 iLh4!?
- Page 175 and 176: THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 iLh4!?
- Page 177 and 178: THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 il..h4
- Page 179 and 180: THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 ~h4!?
- Page 181 and 182: THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 i4.h4!
- Page 183 and 184: 15 The Main Line: 7 e3 liJd7 8 Jtd3
- Page 185 and 186: THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 !i:Jd7 8 i.d3 d
- Page 187 and 188: THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 liJd7 8 i.d3 dx
- Page 189 and 190: THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 0.ti7 8 j,.d3 d
WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 139<br />
Such a doubled pawn is not worth<br />
much in the long run, so why not sacrifice<br />
it to create disturbance in White's<br />
camp? In fact, this has been the most<br />
popular move recently. Compared to<br />
1l....tb7 12 .te2 h3, when 13 .thS! is<br />
strong, White is now deprived of this<br />
possibility. But currently I see no reason<br />
for Black to avoid Line C2.<br />
12 gxh3!?<br />
This is not, of course, very desirable<br />
in the line 1l....tb7 12 .te2 h3.<br />
<strong>The</strong> main advantage of this somewhat<br />
unaesthetic move is that White is immediately<br />
ready to bring his bishop<br />
out on the hl-a8 diagonal. Here is a<br />
summary of the other options:<br />
a) 12 .te2?! hxg2 13ltgl.td6! 14<br />
.tf3 .txeS IS 4:Je4 'it'f4 16 dxeS 4:Jd7<br />
17 4:Jf6+ 4:Jxf6 18 exf6 .t b 7 19 ax bS<br />
'it'eS+ 20 'it'e2 'it'xbS 21ltxg2 0-0-0 +<br />
P.Cramling-Cu.Hansen, Cap d' Agde<br />
rpd 1996.<br />
b) 12 g3 cS! (D) (12.....ib7?!, hoping<br />
to transpose to Line C2, misses its<br />
goal since White can now advantageously<br />
play 13 J.xh3 cS 140-0). Now<br />
White has several options but none of<br />
them promises much:<br />
bl) 13 f4 J.b7 14ltgl J.g7 IS axbS<br />
cxd4 16 'it'xd4 0-0 was rather unclear<br />
in P.Cramling-Doornbos, French Cht<br />
1999 but I like Black's initiative.<br />
b2) 13 .txh3 cxd4 14 4:Jg4 'it'g7 IS<br />
'it'f3 dxc3 16 'it'xa8 (Black easily defends<br />
after 16 0-0 cxb2 17 ltadl fS!!<br />
18 'it'xa8 'it'b7! -+ Khenkin) 16 ... cxb2<br />
17 ltdl .tb4+ 18 'it>e2 c3 19 'fixb8<br />
0-0. Black is a whole rook down - not<br />
W<br />
counting pawns - but the passed<br />
pawns are almost a guarantee of winning<br />
back the material. Tukmakov<br />
Khenkin, Iraklion 1992 now continued<br />
20 'it'xbS (20 'it'c7 bxa4! and there<br />
is a further problem to deal with)<br />
20 ... c2 21 'it'xb4 .ta6+ 22 ~e3 (22<br />
'it>f3 fS! 23 4:Je3 'it'b7 +! 24 'ii'xb7<br />
.txb7+ 2S 'it'f4 cxdl'ii' 26 l:i.xdl .te4<br />
winning another rook and the game -<br />
Khenkin) 22 ... ltc8 23ltcl hS 24 'it>d2<br />
'it' gS+ 2S 4:Je3 'it'd8+ 0-1.<br />
b3) 13 4:JxbS cxd4! 14 4:Jc7+ (14<br />
~xd4 J.b4+ IS 'it>dl 0-0 +) 14 ...'it>d8<br />
IS 'it'xd4+ 4:Jd7 16 O-O-O!? (16 4:Jxa8?<br />
J.b4+! 17 'it>e2 'it'xeS+ 18 'it'xeS 4:JxeS,<br />
intending ....tb7, is tremendous for<br />
Black) 16 ... ~xc7 17 'it'xc4+ 4:JcS 18<br />
'it'bS! (compared to the similar line<br />
where ... h3 and g3 have been left out,<br />
White has a much better version here<br />
since Black does not have the saving<br />
...'fif4+ followed by ...'fixa4, but this<br />
does not give him more than a draw)<br />
18 ... ~xeS (18....te7!?) 19 'it'a5+ 'it>b8<br />
20 'fibS+, and since Black cannot play<br />
20 ... J.b7 in view of 21ltd8+ 'it>c7 22