Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

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

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

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

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!