Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
THE MAIN LINE: 17 a3 33<br />
34 h4 l:td2 35 h5! 1:.ee2 36 .txc5!<br />
.txc5 37 'ii'xc5+ ~xc5 38 fS'ii'+ ~b5<br />
39 h6 +- Sakaev-Se.lvanov, Russia<br />
1996.<br />
c) 26 ... .th6 is a more radical way<br />
of solving Black's problem; once his<br />
dark-squared bishop vanishes, White<br />
will only have his queen to prevent<br />
Black's a-pawn from queening. 27 h4<br />
.txg5 28 hxg5 a5 29 'ilVg6 a4 30 'iVb1 +<br />
'it>a5 31 'ii'b7 ltJxf6!? (3l...ltJb6 is a<br />
risky winning attempt) 32 gxf6 l:ta8<br />
33 'ii'c7+ 1/2- 1 /2 Cu.Hansen-S.<strong>Pedersen</strong>,<br />
Odense training match 1995.<br />
Returning to the position after 22<br />
.tf4 (D):<br />
B<br />
22 ... l:thS!!<br />
This is the stunning move that<br />
keeps Black alive in this whole variation.<br />
You can be pretty sure that it is<br />
not one of the many 'computer novelties'<br />
we see these days, but it stems<br />
from the strong desire of GM Sergei<br />
Ivanov, one of the greatest experts in<br />
the whole <strong>Botvinnik</strong> complex, to make<br />
this line to work for Black.<br />
Before I delve into showing why<br />
this is so clever compared to the alternatives,<br />
I will explain the purpose of<br />
the rook sacrifice, for it is actually<br />
very simple: the queen is deflected<br />
from the centre, thus allowing Black<br />
time to establish two far-advanced<br />
passed pawns. "Is this really enough to<br />
compensate for a whole rook?", you<br />
might ask. Well, to be honest, I do not<br />
know, but it does actually look like<br />
Black's chances are by no means<br />
worse. Of course, one cannot just accept<br />
the strength of such a move by<br />
such superfluous considerations - it<br />
has to be backed up by concrete analysis.<br />
We will return to that.<br />
First, a few alternatives; the purpose<br />
of 22 .tf4!? is shown graphically<br />
in the first three lines:<br />
a) 22 ... cxb4? loses outright to 23<br />
.tc7+.<br />
b) 22 ... l:tc8?! 23 l:ta5 'it'xb4 (after<br />
23 ... 'iVc6 24 'ii'xc4 'it>b7 25 .l:tfa1 :a8<br />
26 bxc3 White is much better) 24<br />
'ii'xd7 'ii'xa5 (24 ... 'it>xa5 25 .l:ta1 + 'it>b6<br />
26l:txa7 +-) 25 bxc3 and White wins.<br />
c) 22 ... cxb2?! is another bad decision.<br />
White wins by 23 l:ta5! (but not<br />
23 .tc7+? 'it>xc7 24 :xa7+ r,t>c8 and<br />
Black survives) 23 ... a6 (23 ... 'it'xb4?<br />
24 .i.c7+ 'it>xc7 25 l:txa7+ 'it>c8 26<br />
'ilVc6+ 'it>b8 27 :a8#) 24 :xb5+ axb5<br />
25 .te3!, threatening 26 bxc5+ .txc5<br />
27 'iVd6+ 'it>b7 28 .txc5 winning.<br />
d) 22 ... a6 was the closest I initially<br />
came to making this line work for<br />
Black, but here too White is close to a<br />
forced win. 23 :a5 'ii'xb4 (D) and then:
Change language