Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

148 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV
w
8 i.xf6
It must be right to give Black more
weaknesses, although 8 'ikc2 is probably
playable. The game W.Schmidt­
Henley, SurakartalDenpasaar 1983
then continued in Black's favour:
8 ... ~bd7 9 i.e2 a5!? 10 0-0 (Henley
thinks that White can minimize the
disadvantage with 10 axbS cxbS 11
dS!? i.b4 12 0-0 i.b7) 1O ... b4! 11
~dl b3 121i'bl i.a613 ~c3 i.b4 +.
8 ... gxf6 9 i.e2 a6
Or:
a) 9 ... ~d7 10 0-0 (10 dS!? is another
idea) 1O ... i.b4 11 dS i.xc3 12
bxc3 ~cS 13 dxc6 (13 'iVd4? eS 14
~xeS ~b3 IS 'ikxb6 axb6 16 ~xc6
~xal 17 l:hal i.d7 + Slepukhov­
Bronstein, Moscow 1945) 13 ... ~xa4
14 llxa4 bxa4 IS 'iVd6. White can perhaps
claim some compensation since
it is not easy for Black to coordinate,
but HUbner believes that Black is able
to untangle with IS ...'ikd8 16 'iVg3
'iti>f8 17 lld 1 'ike7, although this is still
very unclear.
b) 9 ... i.b7 and then:
b 1) After 10 0-0 Black can try a
number of ideas:
b11) HUbner recommends 1O ... i.b4
(a move that he seems to fancy in several
similar lines) with the intention of
ruling out White's pawn-breaks b3
and dS.
b12) 1O ... a6 transposes to the main
line.
b13) 1O ... ~d7 11 a5!? 'ikc7 12 a6
i.c8 13 dS! i.cs 14 b3 b4 IS ~a4 c3
16 ~xcS ~xcS 17 'ikd4 ~xb3 18
'f:fxf6 :g8 19 :abl gave White the
stronger attack in Lutz-eu.Hansen,
Tilburg rpd 1993.
b2) 10 a5!? 'iVc7 11 dS is Lputian's
proposal, with the continuation 11.. .eS
12 ~h4 ±, but this is hardly best play
from Black. 11...b4 looks more critical,
when White can try the piece sacrifice
12 dxe6 bxc3 13 exf7+ 'ikxf7 14
bxc3 with a rather unclear outcome.
100-0 (D)
B
10 ... :a7!?
Black is already far behind in development
and spending another tempo