Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

40 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
w
met by 19 ... 'ili'xe6. There are other options,
but all are inferior to the textmove.
18~xd5
An interesting alternative is here IS
axb4 ~xg2 19 rJi>xg2, when Black has
tried:
a) 19 ... cxb4 20 'iVe2 'it'b5 21':fdl!
lbe5 (21...'ili'xg5 loses to 22 'it'xc4+
lbc5 23 lbxc5: 23 ... 'it'xc5 24 'iVa6+
'i;c7 25 ':dc1 or 23 ... ~xc5 24 ':xa7!
+-) 22lbb6+! 'it'xb6 23 ':xdS+ 'it'xdS
24 'ili'xe5 'ili'd5+ 25 'ili'xd5 exd5 26
lha7 d4 27 ~f4 with some initiative
for White in the endgame, P.Nikoli6-
Timman, Dutch Ch (Rotterdam) 1995.
b) 19 ... 'ili'c6+ 20 f3 cxb4 21 'ili'e2
(21 'ili'd4lbb6 22lbxb6+ axb6 23 'iVf2
~c5 24 ~e3 ~xe3 25 'ili'xe3 ':d3 26
'ili'e2 ':hdS gives Black a clear advantage
according to Beliavsky) 21...~d6
22 ':fdllbe5 23 ':xd6 'ili'xd6 24 ~f4
was played in Beliavsky-Khalifman,
Yugoslavia 1995, and now 24 ... 'it'd3
25 'ili'xe5 'ili'c2+ 26 rJi>fl ':dl + 27 ':xdl
'it'xd 1 + 2S ~g2 'it'c2+ 29 ~flleads to
a draw - Beliavsky.
18 ... lbe5 19 'iVe2
19 ~xe6+? 'iVxe6 20 'ili'e2 l:td3!
wins for Black, but 19 lbxc5 ~xc5 20
axb4 ~xf2+ 21 l:txf2leads to a complicated
position; e.g., 21...l:txd5 22
'iVfl 'iVc6!?23 ':xa7!? (23 ':e2? lbf3+
24 'iVxf3 ':dl + 25 'it'fl ':xfl + 26 l::txfl
l:tdS was better for Black in Sapunov­
Galliamova, Russian Ch (St Petersburg)
1995) 23 ... lbg4 (23 ... lbd3 is
probably also a draw; e.g., 24 'it'al
'iVb6 25 ~e3 'iVxe3 26 'iVa6+ rJi>dS 27
l:taS+ and White has only a perpetual)
24 b5 l:txb5 25 l:taS+ 'it'xaS 26 'ili'xc4+
~dS 27 'ili'xb5 'iVa7 2S 'ili'd3+ 'i;eS 29
'ili'b5+ = (Lutz).
19 ... .:xd5 20 axb4 cxb4 21 lbc3
(D)
B
21 ... 'ii'c6
This exchange sacrifice is best according
to Shirov. Black gains a strong
square for the knight on d3 and good
attacking chances. However, Black
has also been doing quite well with
21...l::ta5!? 22 ':xa5 'iVxa5 23 lbe4
lbd3 24 b3 'ili'e5 and now: