Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

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

142 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV This has lately grown from a rather obscure line into something quite playable for Black. w 8 ttJbl 8 ttJa2 i.a6 9 eS h6 10 exf6 hxgS 11 fxg7 i.xg7 12 ttJxb4 g4 13 ttJeS ~aS 14 ~d2 i.xeS IS dxeS ~xeS+ and now, rather than 16 i.e2? c3! -+ Guliev-Chilov, Iraklion 1996, White has to try 16 ~e2, whereupon Black has at least a draw with 16 ... ~aS 17 ~d2 'ii'eS+, while the more ambitious player might want to try 17 .. J~hS!? 8 ... i.a6 9 'ii'c1 c3 Mikhalchishin's 9 ... i.e7 10 i.xf6 i.xf6 11 i.xc4 cS does not look convincing after the simple response 12 dxcS!. 10 bxc3 i.xfi 11 'it>xfi ttJbd7 11...h6 12 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 13 ttJbd2 bxc3 14 'ii'xc3 as (14 ... cS IS eS cxd4 16 ttJxd4 ~d8 17 ttJbS! ±) and now IS ttcl i.b4 16 'ii'd3 0-0 17 ttJb3 ttd8 18 eS ~e7 19 g3 ~d7 20 ~c4 'ii'dS 21 'it>g2 ttJd7 led to a roughly equal position in Mikhalchishin-A.Petrosian, Lvov 1996, but Mikhalchishin suggests that IS ttJb3 i.b4 16 'ili'c4 might be an edge for White. 12 g3 c5 13 'iti'g2 ttc8 14 cxb4 cxb4 15 'ii'b2 h6 16 i.xf6 ttJxf6 17 ttJbd2 i.e7 18 tthcl 0-0 19 ttJe5 ~b6 White enjoys a slight space advantage in the form of two centre pawns versus one but Black also has a significant plus in his passed b-pawn and the possibility of creating pressure against the d-pawn. However, for the moment White can easily blockade the passed b-pawn with ttJb3, which simultaneously defends d4. 20 f3 ttfd8 20 ... 'iIi'a6 21 ttJb3 ttxc1?! (this exchange allows White a free game; it is better to maintain the control of the c­ file and transpose to the main line with 2l...ttfd8) 22 ttxc1 'ili'xa4 23 ttal 'ili'bS 24 ttxa7 i.d6 2S ttaS 'ili'b7 26 ttJc4 i.e7 27 'ii'a2! gave White an advantage in Comas Fabrego-Korneev, Linares 1997. 21 ttJb3 'ii'a6 22 'it>f2 i.d6 23 'ili'e2 'ili'xe2+ 24 'it>xe2 i.xe5 25 dxe5 ttJd7 Black has an edge, Dizdar-Sveshnikov, Bled 1998. B) 7 ... i.b7 (D) This is generally regarded as the safest of Black's four main approaches, and commonly leads to more open positions. 8 axb5 8 eS is a fairly interesting alternative but probably inferior to the text.

7 a4 143 w After the forced 8 ... h6 White has two options: a) 9 i.h4 gS 10 exf6 gxh4 and now: a1) 11 i.e2 cS!? 12 dxcS ltJd7 13 c6 i.xc6 14 ltJd4 i.xg2 IS .:tg1 (Dokhoian-Kuijf, Wijk aan Zee 1989) lS ... h3!? 16ltJxe6 'iWxf6 17ltJc7+ (17 ltJd5 i.b4+) 17 .. .'~d8 18ltJ7d5! 'iWeS!? (18 ... 'iWd619 'iWd4) 19 f4 'iWd6 20 i.f3! 'iWe6+ 21 ~d2 b4 22ltJbS is unclear­ Dokhoian. a2) 11 axbS cxbS 12ltJxbS i.b4+ l3lZJc3, Ki.Georgiev-Nogueiras, Sarajevo 1985, and now after the accurate 13 ... 0-0! 14 i.xc4 'iWxf6, intending ... .:td8, Black has an edge - Nogueiras. a3) 11 ltJeS ltJd7! (11... 'iW xf6 is Line C2 of Chapter 10) 12 'iWhS 'iWxf6 13 ltJxd7 (13 axbS ltJxeS 14 dxeS 'iWgS IS 'iWxgS hxgS 16 i.xc4 i.g7 =+= Kramnik) 13 ... ~xd7 14 axbS cxbS IS 'iWxbS+ i.c6 16 'iWxc4 i.d6 was slightly better for Black in Van Wely­ Kramnik, Manila OL 1992. b) 9 i.d2!? ltJdS 10 ltJe4 a6 11 b3 cxb3 12 'iWxb3 ltJd7 13 i.d3 i.e7 14 0-00-0 IS i.b1 (this is more accurate than IS .:tfe1 'iWb6 16 i.b1 l:.fc8 17 'ikc2 cS!, as in Guliev-Savchenko, Nikolaev Z 1993; now Black does not get his rook to c8) IS ... l:.e8 16 'iWc2 ltJf8 17 ltJcs (17 .:tel!?) 17 ... i.xcs 18 dxcS. I would be surprised if White had more than just reasonable practical chances for the pawn, but practice has shown that it is not that easy for Black to defend: bl) 18 ... fS (this looks a little too desperate) 19 exf6 'iWxf6 20 i.a2 .:tad8 21 .:tfe1 eS 22 i.aS! .:td7 23ltJd2 (itis clear that as long as Black's bishop does not participate White has excellent compensation) 23 ... ~h8 (23 ... 'iWg6 is more prudent) 24 i.b1 ltJf4 2S .:ta3 'iWg6 26 'iWxg6ltJ4xg6 27lZJe4 ~ Maksimenko-Pinter, Bnmsh"j 1995. b2) 18 ... aS!? 19 axbS cxbS 20 c6 i.c8 21 ..txaS!? .:txaS 22 c7 l:.xa1 23 cxd8'iW .:txd8 24 'iWb2 l:.a8 2S l:.e1 b4 26 ..te4 i.b7 27 h3 l:.ab8 112-112 Pogorelov-Korneev, Benasque 1996. 8 ... cxb5 9 ltJxb5 If White was not ready to play eS on the previous move, it appears less logical to do it here. Nevertheless it is seen once in a while; e.g., 9 eS h6 10 i.d2ltJe4 11ltJxbS ltJxd2! and then: a) 12 ltJxd2 ltJc6 13 i.xc4 a6 14 ltJd6+ i.xd6 IS exd6 'iWxd6 =F Bouaziz-Zhu Chen, Cannes 1997. b) 12 'iWxd2 i.xf3! 13 gxf3ltJc614 .:tdl 'iWb6 IS i.xc4 i.b4 16 ltJc3 O-O-O! with a good position for Black, Scherbakov-Novikov, Blagoveshchensk 1988.

142 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV<br />

This has lately grown from a rather<br />

obscure line into something quite playable<br />

for Black.<br />

w<br />

8 ttJbl<br />

8 ttJa2 i.a6 9 eS h6 10 exf6 hxgS<br />

11 fxg7 i.xg7 12 ttJxb4 g4 13 ttJeS<br />

~aS 14 ~d2 i.xeS IS dxeS ~xeS+<br />

and now, rather than 16 i.e2? c3! -+<br />

Guliev-Chilov, Iraklion 1996, White<br />

has to try 16 ~e2, whereupon Black<br />

has at least a draw with 16 ... ~aS 17<br />

~d2 'ii'eS+, while the more ambitious<br />

player might want to try 17 .. J~hS!?<br />

8 ... i.a6 9 'ii'c1 c3<br />

Mikhalchishin's 9 ... i.e7 10 i.xf6<br />

i.xf6 11 i.xc4 cS does not look convincing<br />

after the simple response 12<br />

dxcS!.<br />

10 bxc3 i.xfi 11 'it>xfi ttJbd7<br />

11...h6 12 i.xf6 'ii'xf6 13 ttJbd2<br />

bxc3 14 'ii'xc3 as (14 ... cS IS eS cxd4<br />

16 ttJxd4 ~d8 17 ttJbS! ±) and now IS<br />

ttcl i.b4 16 'ii'd3 0-0 17 ttJb3 ttd8 18<br />

eS ~e7 19 g3 ~d7 20 ~c4 'ii'dS 21<br />

'it>g2 ttJd7 led to a roughly equal position<br />

in Mikhalchishin-A.Petrosian,<br />

Lvov 1996, but Mikhalchishin suggests<br />

that IS ttJb3 i.b4 16 'ili'c4 might be an<br />

edge for White.<br />

12 g3 c5 13 'iti'g2 ttc8 14 cxb4 cxb4<br />

15 'ii'b2 h6 16 i.xf6 ttJxf6 17 ttJbd2<br />

i.e7 18 tthcl 0-0 19 ttJe5 ~b6<br />

White enjoys a slight space advantage<br />

in the form of two centre pawns<br />

versus one but Black also has a significant<br />

plus in his passed b-pawn and the<br />

possibility of creating pressure against<br />

the d-pawn. However, for the moment<br />

White can easily blockade the passed<br />

b-pawn with ttJb3, which simultaneously<br />

defends d4.<br />

20 f3 ttfd8<br />

20 ... 'iIi'a6 21 ttJb3 ttxc1?! (this exchange<br />

allows White a free game; it is<br />

better to maintain the control of the c­<br />

file and transpose to the main line with<br />

2l...ttfd8) 22 ttxc1 'ili'xa4 23 ttal 'ili'bS<br />

24 ttxa7 i.d6 2S ttaS 'ili'b7 26 ttJc4<br />

i.e7 27 'ii'a2! gave White an advantage<br />

in Comas Fabrego-Korneev, Linares<br />

1997.<br />

21 ttJb3 'ii'a6 22 'it>f2 i.d6 23 'ili'e2<br />

'ili'xe2+ 24 'it>xe2 i.xe5 25 dxe5 ttJd7<br />

Black has an edge, Dizdar-Sveshnikov,<br />

Bled 1998.<br />

B)<br />

7 ... i.b7 (D)<br />

This is generally regarded as the<br />

safest of Black's four main approaches,<br />

and commonly leads to more open positions.<br />

8 axb5<br />

8 eS is a fairly interesting alternative<br />

but probably inferior to the text.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!