Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)
194 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV was seen in Dautov-Fridman, Pula Echt 1997: 16 ... 'iff8!? (now d4-dS-d6 will not come with tempo) 17 h4 cS 18 dS .i.b7 (with the queen on e7, White would be able to play 19 d6 'iff8 20 .i.e4!) 19 hS exdS 20 hxg6 and now Sadler considers 20 ... f6!? 21 e6liJeS as a good chance for Black. c1242) 16 ... .i.b7 17 .i.e4liJf8 (or 17 ... bS 18 'ife3 :tdc8 19liJd2 'iff8 20 f4 a6 21 'iff3 .i.a8 22 a3 cS with counterplay, Bacrot-Godena, Elista OL 1998) 18 g3 :bc8 19 a3 :c7 20 :tedl cS 21 .i.xb7 lbb7 22 liJe4 with an edge for White, Ivanchuk-Kramnik, Novgorod 1996. c2) 13 eS Ad8 14 'ife2 cS!? (after 14 ... b6 IS :fel we have transposed to 'el2' above) IS dSliJxeS!? 16liJxeS exdS 17 liJf3 'ifxe2 18 .i.xe2 .i.e6 (I am amazed that Black can get away with such a sacrifice but White's problem is that there is no clear way of improving his position as Black's pawns restrict the knights very well) 19liJbS!? (M.Gurevich also analyses 19 :tfdl %tac8 20 liJa4 b6 21.i.a6 %tc7 22 b4 .i.f8 23 'ifi>f1 .i.d6 24 bxcS bxcS 2S liJc3 .i.f4, when Black maintains his pawn-centre and has good compensation) 19 ... :dc8 20 b4 (White logically attempts to destroy the centre) 20 ... cxb4 (20 ... b6 21 bxcS bxcS 22 :fdl a6 23 liJc3 is very good for White since Black will be forced to weaken his centre by moving one of the pawns) 21 liJc7 Aab8 22 .i.bS cJi>f8! (White was threatening 23liJxe6 fxe6 24 .i.d7) 23 .i.a4 (23liJxe6+ fxe6 24 ':xc8+ ':xc8 2S .i.d7 %tc2 26 .i.xe6 :txa2 27 .i.xdS %tc2 is stronger according to M.Gurevich, but the issue remains unclear) 23 ... .i.fS! 24liJxdS bS 2S .i.b3 as with strong counterplay, Hillarp Persson-M.Gurevich, Korinthos 1998. Returning to the position after 1l...0-0(D): 12 :tel This little move was for a short period quite popular but now 1 do not think that White is able to get any advantage with it. Here is a summary of the other options: a) 12 b4 is considered in the note to White's 12th move in Line B3. b) 12 .i.b3 l:[d8 13 'ifc2 'ife7 14 :tfdl (this is too slow; White should play 14liJe4, transposing to 'c' below) 14 ... b6 IS a3 .i.b7 16 .i.a2 a6 17 liJd2?! (White should try 17 e4 cS 18 dS bS but this kind of structure is usually not in White's favour as Black has plenty of counterplay due to his strong bishop on g7, which assists the 3 vs 2
THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 tDti7 8 .ii.d3 dxc4 195 majority on the queenside) 17 ... cS 18 ltJc4 (White should try to liquidate with 18 dxcS since now he is saddled with an isolated pawn, which Black can easily blockade and attack) 18 ... cxd4 19 exd4 bS 20 ltJaS ltJb6 21 ltJxb7 'fixb7 22 ltJe2 l:tac8 23 'fid3 'fid7 + Salov-Anand, Wijk aan Zee 1998. c) 121tJe4!? 'fie7 13 ~b3! (White attempts to prevent the usual fianchetto) 13 ... l:td8 (13 ... b6 14 ~a4! cS IS ~c6 l:tb8 16 'iia4 ~b7 17 ~xb7 l:txb7 18 dxcS bxcS 19 b3 is very pleasant for White) 14 'iic21tJf6 (14 ... aS IS a3 ltJf6 16 ltJcs l:ta7 17 ltJeS ~d7 is about equal) IS ltJcs b6?! (a mistake that is worth noting since White now obtains a grip with a series of powerful moves; lS ... aS is again preferable) 16 ltJeS! l:td6 (16 ... bxcS 171tJxc6 'fid6 18 ltJxd8 'iixd8 19 'iixcS! gives White an advantage due to his control of the c file and Black being unable to activate his rook without losing the a-pawn) 17 ltJcd3 ~b7 18 ~a4 l:tc8 19 b4 and White is better as he has successfully prevented ... cS and ... eS, and Black will have to defend c6, Dautov-Dreev, Reggio Emilia 199516. d) 12 'iie2 'fie7 13 l:tfd1 a6 (preparing the freeing ... bS followed by ... cS) 14 a3 (14 ~b3 b6 IS e4 ~b7 16 'iie3 cS 17 dS bS 18 'ili'f4 c4 = LSokolov-Timman, Dutch Ch playoff (Amsterdam) 1996) 14 ... b6 IS e4 ~b7 16 eS (Dreev queries this move, which gives Black an easy game; 16 ~a2 is better) 16 ... cS 17 dS bS 18 ~a2 c4 19 ~b1 exdS 20 ltJxdS ~xdS 21 l:txdS l:tfe8 + Van Wely-Dreev, Wijk aan Zee 1996. e) 12 e4 eS (Black's activity more or less makes up for the structural weaknesses he gets; 12 ... 'fie7 transposes to note 'c' to Black's 11th move above) 13 dslDb614 dxc6 bxc6 (Black cannot avoid this structure; 14 ... ltJxc4 IS lDdS is clearly better for White, while the attempt to avoid the structure with 14 ... 'fixc6 results in a much worse position: lSltJdS 'iid6 16 ~b3 and now Korchnoi-McDonald, Hamburg 1997 continued 16 ... ~g4?! 17 l:tc7! ltJxdS 18 l:txb7 ~xf3 19 gxf3 'iif6 20 ~xdS ±) IS ~e2 l:td8 16 'fic2 ~g4 (D) (16 ... ~e6!? intending ... hS and ... ~h6 is another idea). White can now choose between no fewer than four different knight moves: w e1) 17 lDd2!? 'figS 18 l:tfd1 ~h3 19 ~f1 is suggested by Chekhov but does not really appeal to me. White will be forced to weaken his kingside after 19 ... ~g4 or allow a repetition of moves.
- Page 145 and 146: 7 a4 143 w After the forced 8 ... h
- 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
- Page 195: THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 liJd7 8 ~d3 dxc
- Page 199 and 200: THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 liJd7 8 i..d3 d
- Page 201 and 202: THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 CUd7 8 i.d3 dxc
- Page 203 and 204: THE MAIN LINE: 7 e3 liJd7 8 i.d3 dx
- Page 205 and 206: 16 Black's 8th Move Alternatives 1
- Page 207 and 208: BLACK'S 8TH MOVE ALTERNATIVES 205 B
- Page 209 and 210: BLACK'S 8TH MOVE ALTERNATIVES 207 A
- Page 211 and 212: BLACK'S 8TH MOVE ALTERNATIVES 209 1
- Page 213 and 214: DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINE 211 A
- Page 215 and 216: DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINE 213 p
- Page 217 and 218: DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINE 215 B
- Page 219 and 220: DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINE 217 t
- Page 221 and 222: DEVIATIONS FROM THE MAIN LINE 219 a
- Page 223 and 224: 18 Odds and Ends A few things need
- Page 225 and 226: INDEX OF VARIATIONS 223 ttJxg5 hxg5
- Page 228: The Semi-Slav has been one of the m
194 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SlAV<br />
was seen in Dautov-Fridman, Pula<br />
Echt 1997: 16 ... 'iff8!? (now d4-dS-d6<br />
will not come with tempo) 17 h4 cS 18<br />
dS .i.b7 (with the queen on e7, White<br />
would be able to play 19 d6 'iff8 20<br />
.i.e4!) 19 hS exdS 20 hxg6 and now<br />
Sadler considers 20 ... f6!? 21 e6liJeS<br />
as a good chance for Black.<br />
c1242) 16 ... .i.b7 17 .i.e4liJf8 (or<br />
17 ... bS 18 'ife3 :tdc8 19liJd2 'iff8 20<br />
f4 a6 21 'iff3 .i.a8 22 a3 cS with counterplay,<br />
Bacrot-Godena, Elista OL<br />
1998) 18 g3 :bc8 19 a3 :c7 20 :tedl<br />
cS 21 .i.xb7 lbb7 22 liJe4 with an<br />
edge for White, Ivanchuk-Kramnik,<br />
Novgorod 1996.<br />
c2) 13 eS Ad8 14 'ife2 cS!? (after<br />
14 ... b6 IS :fel we have transposed to<br />
'el2' above) IS dSliJxeS!? 16liJxeS<br />
exdS 17 liJf3 'ifxe2 18 .i.xe2 .i.e6 (I<br />
am amazed that Black can get away<br />
with such a sacrifice but White's problem<br />
is that there is no clear way of<br />
improving his position as Black's<br />
pawns restrict the knights very well)<br />
19liJbS!? (M.Gurevich also analyses<br />
19 :tfdl %tac8 20 liJa4 b6 21.i.a6 %tc7<br />
22 b4 .i.f8 23 'ifi>f1 .i.d6 24 bxcS bxcS<br />
2S liJc3 .i.f4, when Black maintains<br />
his pawn-centre and has good compensation)<br />
19 ... :dc8 20 b4 (White<br />
logically attempts to destroy the centre)<br />
20 ... cxb4 (20 ... b6 21 bxcS bxcS 22<br />
:fdl a6 23 liJc3 is very good for<br />
White since Black will be forced to<br />
weaken his centre by moving one of<br />
the pawns) 21 liJc7 Aab8 22 .i.bS<br />
cJi>f8! (White was threatening 23liJxe6<br />
fxe6 24 .i.d7) 23 .i.a4 (23liJxe6+ fxe6<br />
24 ':xc8+ ':xc8 2S .i.d7 %tc2 26 .i.xe6<br />
:txa2 27 .i.xdS %tc2 is stronger according<br />
to M.Gurevich, but the issue<br />
remains unclear) 23 ... .i.fS! 24liJxdS<br />
bS 2S .i.b3 as with strong counterplay,<br />
Hillarp Persson-M.Gurevich, Korinthos<br />
1998.<br />
Returning to the position after<br />
1l...0-0(D):<br />
12 :tel<br />
This little move was for a short period<br />
quite popular but now 1 do not<br />
think that White is able to get any advantage<br />
with it. Here is a summary of<br />
the other options:<br />
a) 12 b4 is considered in the note to<br />
White's 12th move in Line B3.<br />
b) 12 .i.b3 l:[d8 13 'ifc2 'ife7 14<br />
:tfdl (this is too slow; White should<br />
play 14liJe4, transposing to 'c' below)<br />
14 ... b6 IS a3 .i.b7 16 .i.a2 a6 17<br />
liJd2?! (White should try 17 e4 cS 18<br />
dS bS but this kind of structure is usually<br />
not in White's favour as Black has<br />
plenty of counterplay due to his strong<br />
bishop on g7, which assists the 3 vs 2