Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)
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.
- 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 and 140: WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 137 tZ:lc6
- Page 141 and 142: WHITE GAMBITS: 9 exf6!? 139 Such a
- Page 143: 11 7 a4 1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 lLlf3 lLl
- 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
- Page 191 and 192: THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 tiJd7 8 i.d3 dx
- Page 193 and 194: THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 liJd7 8 ~d3 dxc
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.