Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

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

166 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV b) 12 'ii'c2 f5 13 .ixc4 g4 14 .!L)d2 .!L)f6 15 .!L)c5 .!L)d5 16 h3!? gxh3 17 gxh3 with excellent compensation. White is ready to redeploy the bishop via e2 to h5, Timoshchenko-Antoshin, Tashkent 1982. w 12.!L)c5! This was probably well-known to Sakaev a long time before he got the chance to play it. This was initially an idea of Kramnik's, and virtually refutes Black's opening. The only justification of Black's idea is the hope of being able to eliminate White's bishop on e5. There is no real rush to collect the c4-pawn and hence 12 .!L)c5! prevents Black's only idea. Previously, White used to play 12 0-0 (or first 12 .ixc4) 12 ... .!L)bd7 13 .ixc4, when Black has the following possibilities: a) 13 ... .ig7 14 'ii'e2 .!L)b6 15 .ib3 0-0 16.!L)c5 appeared very pleasant for White in the game Relange-G.Georgadze, Ubeda 1997. b) 13 ... g4 and now: b1) 14 .ixf6!? 'ii'xf6 15 .!L)e5 .!L)xe5 (15 ... h5? 16 f4! .!L)xe5 17 fxe5 ± Lputian-Smagin, USSR Ch (Riga) 1985) 16 dxe5 'ii'xe5 17 'ii'xg4 .td618 g3. I must say that I am rather suspicious about this idea, but in Gormally-Ippolito, Hampstead 1998, White was able to launch a devastating attack after 18 ... .id7 19ltadl .ie7 20 ltfe1 'ii'a5? (20 ... 'ii'f6) 21ltxd7! ~xd7 22.ixe6+ ~c7 23 'ii'f4+ .id6 24 'ii'xf7+ ~b8 25 .tb3 'ii'c7 26 'ii'c4 ±, but Black can improve with 18 ... .ib7!; e.g., 19 ltad1 h5 20 'fif3 ltd8 21 lHel 'ii'g5, and although Black still needs to tread carefully, he should be able to defend. b2) 14 .!L)d2 .!L)xe5 15 dxe5 .!L)d7 and now White has a number of continuations, all of them very dangerous-looking but none decisive: b21) 16 f4!? gxf3 17 'ii'xf3 .!L)xe5 18 'ii'a (18 'ii'e4!?) 18 ... .ig7 19 .!L)e4 0-020 ltadl 'ii'e7 21 .ie2 .id7 22 .!L)ac5 .ie8 and Black defends, Neurohr-Beikert, 2nd Bundesliga 1992. b22) 16 'ii'xg4 .!L)xe5 17 'ii'e4 .!L)xc4 18 .!L)xc4 'ii'd5 19 'fif4?! (19 'ii'c2 is a better idea, intending, after 19 ... .ia6, to reply 20 b3 .ixc4 21 l:.ad1 with compensation - Galliamova) 19 ... .ia6 20 .!L)e5 (here Black is able to meet 20 b3 with 20 ... lId8!) 20 ... 0-0-0 21.!L)xc6 .id6 22 'ii'cl ~d7! 23 .!L)xd8 .ixfl 24 'ii'xflltxd8 and Black is slightly better, Chiburdanidze-Galliamova, Groningen worn Ct 1997. b23) 16 l:.el h5 (16 ... 'ii'a5!?) 17 f4 .!L)b6?! (Lutz suggests 17 ... gxf3 18 .!L)xf3 .ib7 followed by either ... 'ii'a5

THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 i&.h4!? 167 or ... 'ilic7 and ... 0-0-0) 18lLlxb6 'ii'xb6+ 19 'ithl J..e7 20 lLle4 J..b7 21 f5 with a strong attack for White, Savchenko­ Izkuznykb, Russian Club Cup (Maikop) 1998. Returning to the position after 12 lLlc5! (D): B 12 ... J..g7?! The type of position that arises after this move is clearly in White's favour, so Black needs to look for an improvement around here. a) 12 ... lLlbd7!? 13lLlxd7 J..xd7 14 J..xc4 leads to the same kind of position, which is better for White. b) Curiously Sakaev does not examine 12 ... J..xc5!? 13 dxc5 lLlbd7, which looks more critical. Baburin says 14 'ii'd6 is unclear, and Black may actually be able to defend with 14 ... J..b7 15 :tdllDxe5 16 'ilixe5 'ii'e7. Of course, White has plenty of compensation, but there is no clear way to break through. I would prefer 14 J..d6, intending to centralize the queen on d4. Both 14 ... 'ilia5 15 'ii'd4 and 14 ... lLle4 15 'ii'd4 lLldf6 16 h4 g4 17 lLle5 look good for White. 13 J..xc4 0-0 13 ... lLlbd7 14lLlxd7 J..xd7 15 'ii'd3 'fie7 16 J..b3 is clearly better for White according to Sakaev. 14 ~c2lLlbd7 15 h4 gxh4 This opens lines against his own king. However, 15 ... g4!? 16lDg5! :te8 17 0-0-0 also gives White a fantastic attack. 16 lLlxd7 J..xd7 17 :txh4 ± Sakaev-Kobaliya, Russian Ch (St Petersburg) 1998. B) 9 ... J..b4!? This has for some time been slightly underestimated (or just neglected) but has lately been the preference of some very strong players. In fact Black wins a pawn unless White plays 10 e5, which is simply undesirable since it buries his own bishop while conceding important central squares. 10 'iic2 (D) 10 0-0 offers the pawn sacrifice under slightly different circumstances. 1O ... J..xc3 11 bxc3 lLlxe4 and now: a) 12 'fic2lLlxg3 13 fxg3lDd7 and now, rather than 14 'ilie4?! 'ilic7 15 lLld2 J..b7 16 J..h5 0-0-017 :txf7 c5!, when Black had strong counterplay in Utemov-Mukbametov, Moscow 1990, White should play 14 lLle5 lLlxe5 15 dxe5, intending J..h5. b) 12lDe5!? and then: bl) 12 ... lLlxc3 13 'ilic2 and now 13 ... lLlxe2+ 14 'fixe2 with ideas such

166 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV<br />

b) 12 'ii'c2 f5 13 .ixc4 g4 14 .!L)d2<br />

.!L)f6 15 .!L)c5 .!L)d5 16 h3!? gxh3 17<br />

gxh3 with excellent compensation.<br />

White is ready to redeploy the bishop<br />

via e2 to h5, Timoshchenko-Antoshin,<br />

Tashkent 1982.<br />

w<br />

12.!L)c5!<br />

This was probably well-known to<br />

Sakaev a long time before he got the<br />

chance to play it. This was initially an<br />

idea of Kramnik's, and virtually refutes<br />

Black's opening. <strong>The</strong> only justification<br />

of Black's idea is the hope of<br />

being able to eliminate White's bishop<br />

on e5. <strong>The</strong>re is no real rush to collect<br />

the c4-pawn and hence 12 .!L)c5! prevents<br />

Black's only idea.<br />

Previously, White used to play 12<br />

0-0 (or first 12 .ixc4) 12 ... .!L)bd7 13<br />

.ixc4, when Black has the following<br />

possibilities:<br />

a) 13 ... .ig7 14 'ii'e2 .!L)b6 15 .ib3<br />

0-0 16.!L)c5 appeared very pleasant for<br />

White in the game Relange-G.Georgadze,<br />

Ubeda 1997.<br />

b) 13 ... g4 and now:<br />

b1) 14 .ixf6!? 'ii'xf6 15 .!L)e5 .!L)xe5<br />

(15 ... h5? 16 f4! .!L)xe5 17 fxe5 ± Lputian-Smagin,<br />

USSR Ch (Riga) 1985)<br />

16 dxe5 'ii'xe5 17 'ii'xg4 .td618 g3. I<br />

must say that I am rather suspicious<br />

about this idea, but in Gormally-Ippolito,<br />

Hampstead 1998, White was able<br />

to launch a devastating attack after<br />

18 ... .id7 19ltadl .ie7 20 ltfe1 'ii'a5?<br />

(20 ... 'ii'f6) 21ltxd7! ~xd7 22.ixe6+<br />

~c7 23 'ii'f4+ .id6 24 'ii'xf7+ ~b8 25<br />

.tb3 'ii'c7 26 'ii'c4 ±, but Black can improve<br />

with 18 ... .ib7!; e.g., 19 ltad1<br />

h5 20 'fif3 ltd8 21 lHel 'ii'g5, and although<br />

Black still needs to tread carefully,<br />

he should be able to defend.<br />

b2) 14 .!L)d2 .!L)xe5 15 dxe5 .!L)d7<br />

and now White has a number of continuations,<br />

all of them very dangerous-looking<br />

but none decisive:<br />

b21) 16 f4!? gxf3 17 'ii'xf3 .!L)xe5<br />

18 'ii'a (18 'ii'e4!?) 18 ... .ig7 19 .!L)e4<br />

0-020 ltadl 'ii'e7 21 .ie2 .id7 22 .!L)ac5<br />

.ie8 and Black defends, Neurohr-Beikert,<br />

2nd Bundesliga 1992.<br />

b22) 16 'ii'xg4 .!L)xe5 17 'ii'e4 .!L)xc4<br />

18 .!L)xc4 'ii'd5 19 'fif4?! (19 'ii'c2 is a<br />

better idea, intending, after 19 ... .ia6,<br />

to reply 20 b3 .ixc4 21 l:.ad1 with<br />

compensation - Galliamova) 19 ... .ia6<br />

20 .!L)e5 (here Black is able to meet 20<br />

b3 with 20 ... lId8!) 20 ... 0-0-0 21.!L)xc6<br />

.id6 22 'ii'cl ~d7! 23 .!L)xd8 .ixfl 24<br />

'ii'xflltxd8 and Black is slightly better,<br />

Chiburdanidze-Galliamova, Groningen<br />

worn Ct 1997.<br />

b23) 16 l:.el h5 (16 ... 'ii'a5!?) 17 f4<br />

.!L)b6?! (Lutz suggests 17 ... gxf3 18<br />

.!L)xf3 .ib7 followed by either ... 'ii'a5

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!