Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

24 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
23 'ii'd4 'itb8 24 ':'xc6 Ibg3+ 25
fxg3 'ii'xc6 26 ltd1 .i.h6 (D)
w
The assessment of this endgame is
very important for the entire variation
with 19 'fig4, but despite several outings
in tournament play, an established
conclusion has not been drawn.
Both kings are exposed, which makes
it difficult for either side to launch a
direct attack, since the counterattack
would be swift. White can net a pawn
on b4 but this opens a line for Black's
rook, and perhaps more critically
wastes time. Therefore the best is to
activate the knight.
27 ttJc5
27 'ii'xb4+ ~a8 28 'fid4 was suggested
by Knaak, but it is not clear
what White should do after 28 ... ':'b8!'
In Vikulov-Naivelt, USSR corr. Ch
1991, White quickly went astray with
29 h4 (nor does 29 ttJcS ':'bS 30 b4
':'xb4 31 'ii'eS ltb8 appear clear)
29 ... ltb3! 30~h2? 'fic2+ 31 'ith3.i.f4!
32 'ii'xf4 'ii'xdl 33 ttJc3 'ii'd3 34 hS
':'xb2 and Black soon won.
27 ... ~a8 28 'ii'e4 'ii'xe4 29 ttJxe4 as
Black has reasonable counterplay
in the endgame, Yusupov-Tukmakov,
Leningrad 1987.
C}
17 ... exd518 axb4 (D)
18 ltel has received comparatively
little interest but is not without venom.
White now threatens .i.xdS as Black
has been deprived of the reply ... ttJeS.
Hence the only move is 18 ... d4, when
White can try:
a) 19 axb4 transposes to note 'a' to
White's 19th move in Line C2.
b) 19 i.xb7+ 'itxb7 20 axb4 cxb4
21 'fixd4 (21 'fif3+? 'fic6 22 'fifS .i.d6
was fine for Black in Beliavsky-Lutz,
Munich 1994; White has no obvious
attack, while Black has managed to
solve most of his usual problems)
21...'fixgS 22 'fixc4 ':'c8 23 'ii'xf7 ':'c7
with an unclear position according to
Lutz. I would say Black's chances are
quite promising. White will most
likely lose the f6-pawn, while his king
looks as exposed as Black's.