Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

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

168 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV as IS ':'adl, IS f4 or IS 'ii'hS gives White good compensation according to Yusupov, and Black cannot play 13 .. :ii'xd4? in view of 14 .thS 0-0 IS .l:[ad I! lDxd 1 16 ':'xd 1 'if'b6 17 lDxf7 ':'xf7 18 'if'g6+ ':'g7 19 'ii'e8+ 'it'h7 20 .teS and Black cannot prevent mate, beginning with .tg6+ - Yusupov. b2) 12 ... lDd713.thS 0-0 14lDxf7!? ':'xf7 IS .txf7+ 'it'xf7 16 'if'c2 lDdf6 17 .teS with some compensation, Yusupov-Akopian, Ubeda 1997. White ideally wants to open the f-file; in the game this was carried out after the preliminary g4, so as to avoid Black answering f4 with ... g4. B 10 •.. g4!? After this White has to show compensation for two pawns, and it is clear that if Black survives the middlegame he will be in a position to cash in the full point without much trouble. A safer option is 1O ... .tb7 11 0-0 lDbd7 12lDeS hS 13 h3 h4 14 .th2 lDhS IS .txhS .l:[xhS 16 .l:[adl 'if'e7 17 lDxd7 'if'xd7 18 dS!? cxdS 19 exdS .txc3 20 'ii'xc3 i.xdS 21 ':'fel 1/2_ 1 /2 B.LaliC­ Zhu Chen, Ubeda 1998. The oppositecoloured bishops mean that White has adequate counterplay for the two-pawn deficit. 11 tDeS! This is much stronger than 11 lDd2 'ii'xd4 12 0-0-0 'ii'b6, after which I doubt that White has enough compensation since the knight makes a rather clumsy appearance on d2 and thereby lessens White's pressure and influence on the centre substantially. In Ikonnikov-Prie, St Affrique 1994, White may have realized that Black can complete his development without too much trouble and hence went for 13 .txc4?! bxc4 14lDxc4 and now instead of 14 ... 'if'a6 Black should play 14 ... 'ii'cS, which Prie thinks is extremely good for Black; e.g., IslDd6+ 'it'e7 16 eS (or 16 a3 .txc3 17lDxc8+ l:txc8 18 .td6+ 'if'xd6 19 .l:[xd6 ..ti>xd6 20 'if'xc3 lDbd7 and Black is about to consolidate) 16 ... lDdS 17 .th4+ 'itd7 18lDxf7 ':'f8 19lDd6 (19 'ii'h7 ..ti>c7!) 19 ... 'it'c7 20 'if'h7+ lDd7 21lDde4 WaS +. 11 .. :ii'xd4 12 0-0 12 lDxg4!? is maybe stronger; for example, 12 ... lDxg4 13 .txg4 lDd7 140-0 (14 .l:[dl Wg7 IS .te2 .tb7 16 0-0 looks more promising for White) 14 ... .tb7 IS .thS?! lDcs 16 .l:[fel O-O-O! 17 .txf7 'if'f6 18 .thS lDd3 leading to an unclear game, Mellegers-Cifuentes, Dutch Ch (Enschede) 1998. 12 ... .txc3

THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 ~h4!? 169 12 ... hS?! 13 ':adl 'ii'cs (13 ... 'iWb6!?) 14 ':d8+! ~xd8 IS .!Dxf7+ ~e8 16 .!Dxh8 'iWfB 17 eS gave White a distinct advantage in Bosboom-Hofman, Wijk aan Zee 1997. 13 bxc3 'ii'xe4 14 'ii'd2 .!Dbd7 15 ':adl Yusupov claims compensation for White here, but I am rather uncertain about this. Black can play IS ... .!DdS 16 .!Dxg4 hS 17 .!De3 h4 18 .i.f3 'ii'g6 19 .i.d6 .i.b7, when White's position does not impress. C) 9 ... .i.b7 (D) W Now: Cl: 10 0-0 170 C2: 10 e5 172 C3: 10 h4! 173 Currently, Line C3, an idea from Khalifman, appears very dangerous. Moreover, even if Black finds a good defence against this particular line, White has a variety of other quite promising options. Instead, lO .!DeS is so far relatively unexplored. Indeed, White does often move the knight to eS but, on the face of it, it makes more sense to do so after provoking ... g4. However, it is not yet clear how Black should best react: a) 10 ....!Dbd7!? looks sensible but nevertheless seems to give White a good position: 11 h4 (11 'ii'c2 .i.g7!? 12 ':dl 'ii'b6 13 h4 looks rather unclear but is perhaps quite promising for White) 11...b4 12.!Dxd7 'ii'xd7 13 ..IteS (13 .!Da4 .!Dxe4 14 .i.eS f6 defends for Black) 13 ... bxc3 (13 ....i.g7 14.!Da4) 14 .i.xf6 cxb2 (l4....i.b4 IS bxc3 .i.xc3+ 16 ~f1 .i.xal 17 .i.xh8 .i.c3 18 hxgS hxgS 19 .i.f6 'iWd6 20 .i.xc4 ±) IS l:tbl .i.b4+ 16 ~f1 ':g8 17 l:txb2 and White is much better. b) lO ....i.g7 11 h4.!Dfd7?! (the alternative 11.. ..!Dbd7!? is better, and similar to 'a' above) 12 .!Dg4! with a difficult choice for Black: bl) 12 ...'iWaS? 13 hxgS hxgS 14 l:txh8+ .i.xh8 IS ~f1 .!Da6 16 eS! 0-0-0, Topalov-Timman, Wijk aan Zee 1998, and now plonking the knight in on d6 with 17 .!De4 and .!Dd6 would have been very good for White. b2) 12 ... hS 13 .!De3 g4 14 dS!? is dangerous. b3) 12 ... fS!? looks terribly risky but is not clear if White continues 13 .!DeS; e.g., 13 ....!DxeS 14 .i.xeS .i.xeS IS dxeS 'iWxdl + 16 ':xdl g4. However, much stronger is 13 exfS exfS 14 'ii'c2! 0-0 IS hxgS it'xgS 16 ltJe3 .i.xd4 (16.. .f4? 17 .i.h4 and the queen is trapped) 17 l:th5 ±.

THE ANTI-MoSCOW VARIATION: 6 ~h4!? 169<br />

12 ... hS?! 13 ':adl 'ii'cs (13 ... 'iWb6!?)<br />

14 ':d8+! ~xd8 IS .!Dxf7+ ~e8 16<br />

.!Dxh8 'iWfB 17 eS gave White a distinct<br />

advantage in Bosboom-Hofman, Wijk<br />

aan Zee 1997.<br />

13 bxc3 'ii'xe4 14 'ii'd2 .!Dbd7 15<br />

':adl<br />

Yusupov claims compensation for<br />

White here, but I am rather uncertain<br />

about this. Black can play IS ... .!DdS 16<br />

.!Dxg4 hS 17 .!De3 h4 18 .i.f3 'ii'g6 19<br />

.i.d6 .i.b7, when White's position does<br />

not impress.<br />

C)<br />

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

W<br />

Now:<br />

Cl: 10 0-0 170<br />

C2: 10 e5 172<br />

C3: 10 h4! 173<br />

Currently, Line C3, an idea from<br />

Khalifman, appears very dangerous.<br />

Moreover, even if Black finds a good<br />

defence against this particular line,<br />

White has a variety of other quite<br />

promising options.<br />

Instead, lO .!DeS is so far relatively<br />

unexplored. Indeed, White does often<br />

move the knight to eS but, on the face<br />

of it, it makes more sense to do so after<br />

provoking ... g4. However, it is not yet<br />

clear how Black should best react:<br />

a) 10 ....!Dbd7!? looks sensible but<br />

nevertheless seems to give White a<br />

good position: 11 h4 (11 'ii'c2 .i.g7!?<br />

12 ':dl 'ii'b6 13 h4 looks rather unclear<br />

but is perhaps quite promising<br />

for White) 11...b4 12.!Dxd7 'ii'xd7 13<br />

..IteS (13 .!Da4 .!Dxe4 14 .i.eS f6 defends<br />

for Black) 13 ... bxc3 (13 ....i.g7<br />

14.!Da4) 14 .i.xf6 cxb2 (l4....i.b4 IS<br />

bxc3 .i.xc3+ 16 ~f1 .i.xal 17 .i.xh8<br />

.i.c3 18 hxgS hxgS 19 .i.f6 'iWd6 20<br />

.i.xc4 ±) IS l:tbl .i.b4+ 16 ~f1 ':g8<br />

17 l:txb2 and White is much better.<br />

b) lO ....i.g7 11 h4.!Dfd7?! (the alternative<br />

11.. ..!Dbd7!? is better, and<br />

similar to 'a' above) 12 .!Dg4! with a<br />

difficult choice for Black:<br />

bl) 12 ...'iWaS? 13 hxgS hxgS 14<br />

l:txh8+ .i.xh8 IS ~f1 .!Da6 16 eS!<br />

0-0-0, Topalov-Timman, Wijk aan Zee<br />

1998, and now plonking the knight in<br />

on d6 with 17 .!De4 and .!Dd6 would<br />

have been very good for White.<br />

b2) 12 ... hS 13 .!De3 g4 14 dS!? is<br />

dangerous.<br />

b3) 12 ... fS!? looks terribly risky<br />

but is not clear if White continues 13<br />

.!DeS; e.g., 13 ....!DxeS 14 .i.xeS .i.xeS<br />

IS dxeS 'iWxdl + 16 ':xdl g4. However,<br />

much stronger is 13 exfS exfS 14<br />

'ii'c2! 0-0 IS hxgS it'xgS 16 ltJe3<br />

.i.xd4 (16.. .f4? 17 .i.h4 and the queen<br />

is trapped) 17 l:th5 ±.

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!