Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

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

204 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV Then Black has tried: a) 11...0-0?! is inaccurate and lets White immediately transform into a favourable structure with 12 b5 li'd6 13 bxc6 bxc6 14ltc1. White is ready to play lLla4 with a bind, and is therefore clearly better. In Ruban-Lazic, Yugoslavia 1993 Black tried to avoid this by 14 ... c5 but was presented with yet another problem after 15 dxc5 lLlxc5 16 i.c4!. b) 11...lLlb6 12ltc1 i.g4 13 i.e2 i.xf3 14 i.xf3 0-0 15 b5 'iWd6 16 'iWd3 (Lutz suggests another interesting plan, viz. 16lLla4!? with the idea that White will win back his pawn after 16 ... cxb5 17lLlxb6 axb6 IS 'iWb3, and if 16 ... lLlc4 17lLlc5 b61SlLld3 White can again win back the pawn after IS ... cxb5 19 lLlf4) 16 ... 'iWa3 17 ltbl ltfdS IS l:lb3 'ike7 19 bxc6 bxc6 20 l:ldl ;j; Lutz-Korchnoi, Ptuj 1995. c) 11...'iWd6!? 12 'iWb3 (12 b5 can now be answered by 12 ... c5!) 12 ... lLlb6 (again the most accurate since White was ready to play b5) 13 a4 i.e6 14 lLld2 lLld7 15 lLle2 0-0 16 ltfc1 ltfeS 17 ltablltacS IS a5 i.g4 is roughly equal, P.Cramling-Korchnoi, Prague (Women vs Veterans) 1995. 9 ... dxe4 9 ... dxc4 transposes to Chapter 15; e.g., Line B2 after 10 e5 'ike7 11 i.xc4 i.g7 12 0-0. 10 lLlxe4 i.b4+ 11 ~e2 This seems more logical than 11 ~f1 but it is not entirely clear whether it is really better. The problem for Black is now that his queen is attacked and hence White will gain a tempo for c5, which cuts off Black's dark-squared bishop. 11 ... li'g7! 11... 'ikdS 12 c5 0-0 13 h4 gave White a promising attack in Ribli-Farago, Hungarian Ch 1977. 12 e5 i.a5 Forced, or else White will trap the bishop by 'iWa4. 13 lLld6+ ~e7 14 'ii'b3 i.e7 15 lthel!? 15 lLlxcs+ lthxcS 16 'iixb7 ltabS 17 'iixa7 ltxb2+ gives Black some counterplay, although it is far from certain whether it sufficiently compensates the pawn. At any rate, this might be an argument for placing the king on f1 at move 11. 15 ... i.xd616 exd6+ ~xd617 'iitn ~e7 18 l:lac1lLlb6 19 lLle5 White has reasonable compensation for the pawn, Topalov-Ljubojevic, Monaco Amber rpd 1995. B) 8 ... i.d6 9 0-0 'ii'e710 e5! (D)

BLACK'S 8TH MOVE ALTERNATIVES 205 B This fairly typical move of such Semi-Slav positions marks White's space advantage further. Black is never really able to exploit the hole that arises on d5 and will be fighting to activate his light-squared bishop. 10 ... .i.c7 11 e4 dxe4 12lDxe4 I would probably capture with the knight automatically, but 12 .i.xe4!? has some point. The reason is that after Black plays ... lDf6 at some point in reply to lDxe4 White usually avoids the exchange of knights, and retreating the knight to c3 might be best. Hence White here argues that taking with the bishop opens the opportunity to improve the position of the bishop after the same kind of sequence, that is retreating it to c2. Here is an example to back up a slightly confusing explanation: 12 ... 0-0 13 b4 .:ld8 14 l:tel lDf6 15 .i.c2 (if White had taken on e4 with the knight and retreated it to c3, White's bishop would now have been on d3) 15 ... b6 16 .i.a4! i.b7 17 'ii'e2 a5 18 a3 with an edge for White, Polugaevsky-Mecking, Lucerne Ct (I) 1977. 12 ... 0-013 l:tell:td8 14 'iVc2 Of course this contradicts my comment to 12 .i.xe4!? above, but line 'b' gives an idea of what I mean: a) 14 'ii'e2 b6 15 b4 .i.b7 16 .:lac1 l:tac8 17 a3 .i.b8 18l:tcdl a5 19 g3 axb4 20 axb4 i.c7 21 h4 ~ Hjartarson-Bjarnason, Icelandic Ch (Reykjavik) 1995. b) 14 b4lDf8 15lDc3!? (Black did not play ... lDf6 but White reckons that retreating the knight is still the best decision since Black could consider playing ... lDg6 next) 15 ... 'ii'f6 16lDe4 'ii'e7 17lDc3 'ii'f6 18lDe5!? (18 'ii'b3) 18 ... i.d7?! (this is too passive; Sakaev suggests 18 ... l:txd4!? 19 .i.h7+ ~xh7 20 'ilVxd4lDg6 21lDf3 'ii'xd4 22lDxd4 e5 23 lDb3 .i.e6 with compensation) 19lDg4! 'ii'g5 20lDe4 'ii'h4 21 g3 'fie7 22lDef6+! ~h8 23 d5 ± Sakaev-Neverov, St Petersburg 1995. 14 ... lDf8 Or 14 ... lDf6 15 :'adl (Granda suggests 15 lDed2 with the idea of lDc4- e5) 15 ... lDxe4 16 .i.xe4 .i.d7 17 lDe5 i.e8 18 g3 :'ac8 19 'ii'c3 .i.b8 20 b4 with an edge for White, lonov-Thorhallsson, Cappelle la Grande 1996. 15lDed2 15 'ii'c3 .i.d7 16 .i.c4! i.e8 17 .i.b3 f6 18 lDed2 .i.f7 19 :'e2 is slightly preferable for White due to the pressure against e6 - Granda. 15 ... .i.d7 16lDc4 .i.e8 17 .:ladl f6 18 'iVc3 :'d7 In this position the chances are approximately equal, Bareev-Granda, Groningen peA qual 1993. White's pressure against e6 is not as strong as

204 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV<br />

<strong>The</strong>n Black has tried:<br />

a) 11...0-0?! is inaccurate and lets<br />

White immediately transform into a<br />

favourable structure with 12 b5 li'd6<br />

13 bxc6 bxc6 14ltc1. White is ready<br />

to play lLla4 with a bind, and is therefore<br />

clearly better. In Ruban-Lazic,<br />

Yugoslavia 1993 Black tried to avoid<br />

this by 14 ... c5 but was presented with<br />

yet another problem after 15 dxc5<br />

lLlxc5 16 i.c4!.<br />

b) 11...lLlb6 12ltc1 i.g4 13 i.e2<br />

i.xf3 14 i.xf3 0-0 15 b5 'iWd6 16 'iWd3<br />

(Lutz suggests another interesting<br />

plan, viz. 16lLla4!? with the idea that<br />

White will win back his pawn after<br />

16 ... cxb5 17lLlxb6 axb6 IS 'iWb3, and<br />

if 16 ... lLlc4 17lLlc5 b61SlLld3 White<br />

can again win back the pawn after<br />

IS ... cxb5 19 lLlf4) 16 ... 'iWa3 17 ltbl<br />

ltfdS IS l:lb3 'ike7 19 bxc6 bxc6 20<br />

l:ldl ;j; Lutz-Korchnoi, Ptuj 1995.<br />

c) 11...'iWd6!? 12 'iWb3 (12 b5 can<br />

now be answered by 12 ... c5!) 12 ... lLlb6<br />

(again the most accurate since White<br />

was ready to play b5) 13 a4 i.e6 14<br />

lLld2 lLld7 15 lLle2 0-0 16 ltfc1 ltfeS<br />

17 ltablltacS IS a5 i.g4 is roughly<br />

equal, P.Cramling-Korchnoi, Prague<br />

(Women vs Veterans) 1995.<br />

9 ... dxe4<br />

9 ... dxc4 transposes to Chapter 15;<br />

e.g., Line B2 after 10 e5 'ike7 11 i.xc4<br />

i.g7 12 0-0.<br />

10 lLlxe4 i.b4+ 11 ~e2<br />

This seems more logical than 11<br />

~f1 but it is not entirely clear whether<br />

it is really better. <strong>The</strong> problem for<br />

Black is now that his queen is attacked<br />

and hence White will gain a tempo for<br />

c5, which cuts off Black's dark-squared<br />

bishop.<br />

11 ... li'g7!<br />

11... 'ikdS 12 c5 0-0 13 h4 gave<br />

White a promising attack in Ribli-Farago,<br />

Hungarian Ch 1977.<br />

12 e5 i.a5<br />

Forced, or else White will trap the<br />

bishop by 'iWa4.<br />

13 lLld6+ ~e7 14 'ii'b3 i.e7 15<br />

lthel!?<br />

15 lLlxcs+ lthxcS 16 'iixb7 ltabS<br />

17 'iixa7 ltxb2+ gives Black some<br />

counterplay, although it is far from<br />

certain whether it sufficiently compensates<br />

the pawn. At any rate, this might<br />

be an argument for placing the king on<br />

f1 at move 11.<br />

15 ... i.xd616 exd6+ ~xd617 'iitn<br />

~e7 18 l:lac1lLlb6 19 lLle5<br />

White has reasonable compensation<br />

for the pawn, Topalov-Ljubojevic,<br />

Monaco Amber rpd 1995.<br />

B)<br />

8 ... i.d6 9 0-0 'ii'e710 e5! (D)

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!