Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

154 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
9 exf6 hxg5 10 fxg7 lIg8, which I felt
should also be quite comfortable for
Black) 9 exf6 gxf6 10 i.h4 tDc6 11
tDxd4 tDxd4 12 i.xc4 ~e7 13 'ii'd2
tDf5 14 i.xf6+! ~xf6 15 tDe4+ ~g7
(it should not come as a surprise that
Fritz's first suggestion is 15 ... ~e5,
but 16 'ii'xb4 ~e4 17 lIdl tDd4 18 'ii'c3
e5 19 f4looks terribly dangerous) 16
'ii'xb4 'fid4 17 tDg3 'ii'e5+ 18 i.e2
l:td8 is roughly level, Lin Weiguo­
Kaidanov, Lucerne Wcht 1993.
8 ... cxd4 (D)
w
a1) 1O ... tDxe4 11 0-0 tDd6 (after
1l...tDf6, 12 'fif3 0-0 13 l:tad1 'fie7 14
l:tfe1 tDc6 was fine for Black in Bronstein-Botvinnik,
Moscow Wch (24)
1951, but White should play more aggressively
with 12 tDdb5!) 12 i.a2 0-0
13 'fif3 'fie7 14 l:tfd1 ~h8 15 tDc2
i.xc3 16 bxc3 tDf5 17 i.c 1 l:te8 18
i.a3 'ii'f6 19 tDd4 tDxd4 20 'ii'xf6
tDe2+ 21 ~f1 gxf6 22 ~xe2 tDc6 with
equality, Sergeev-Savchenko, St Petersburg
1993.
a2) 10 ... 0-0 11 f3 'fie7 120-0 tDc6
13 tDxc6 bxc6 14 'fie2 as 15 e5 tDd5
16 tDe4 tDxe3 17 'fixe3 lId8 18 l:tad1
i.a6 = Yermolinsky-Atalik, Hastings
1995.
b) 10 i.b5+ tDbd7!? 11 i.xf6 'fixf6
12 tDde2 a6 13 i.xd7+ i.xd7 140-0
i.c6 15 'fib3 i.d6! 16 lIad 1 lId8 17
~h 1 0-0 18 f4 i.c5 19 'fic4 'fie7 20 h3
l:tc8 =+= Kiselev-Dreev, Helsinki 1992.
9 ... tDc610 tDxd4 (D)
9 i.b5+
This is now considered the most
accurate, since if 9 ... tDbd7, White can
now play 10 'fixd4!.
After 9 tDxd4, 9 ... h6 is the option I
referred to in my discussion of the
similarities to the Vienna. In the Vienna,
White would now be able to play
'fia4+, but with the pawn taking up
that square, White has to respond to
the attack on the bishop:
a) 10 i.e3 leading to a further
branch:
B
lO ... i.d7
I suppose it is still too early to draw
a conclusion from the pawn sacrifice