21.10.2019 Views

Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

Create successful ePaper yourself

Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.

52 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SEA V<br />

exdS1W+?! l:xdS 24 .txd8+? ~xd8 25<br />

tDb7+ introduces a nice combination<br />

but simply does not work: 25 ... Wc7 26<br />

1Wxd7+ ~xd7 27 tDxc5+ ~d6 28<br />

tDxa6 c3 and Black wins) 23 .. /ifa'b6 24<br />

tDxc4+ (24 exd8'ii'+ ':xd8 25 tDxf7<br />

':e8 26 "ii'd6+ ~a5 27 "ii'xd7 ':e1 + 28<br />

~g2 .te4+ 29 f3 .tc6 30 'ii'd8+ Wa4<br />

31 "ii'd2 l:a1 gives Black a clear advantage<br />

according to Kramnik) 24 .. .roitb5<br />

25 tDd6+ ~b6 26 exd8.t+ l:xd8 27<br />

tDc4+ ~b5 28 tDd6+ ~b6 29 tDc4+<br />

~b5 1/2_ 1 /2 Topalov-Kramnik, Dortmund<br />

1996.<br />

20.txh6<br />

20 exd8"ii'+ Wxd8 21 tDe4 looks<br />

dangerous but Black keeps his pieces<br />

together with the clever manoeuvre<br />

21....th3! 22 tDxc5 .te6 (note that tour<br />

of the bishop!), Ermolinsky-Ivanchul.,<br />

Pinsk 1986.<br />

20 ... .td3 (D)<br />

w<br />

21 tDe4!? (D)<br />

Shirov describes this as 'not very<br />

dangerous for Black' but he still failed<br />

to find the right way for Black in his<br />

game with Beliavsky. Yet comparing<br />

with Kramnik's 19 ... .txe7 the difference<br />

is not that great and there tDe4 is<br />

invariably played.<br />

21 exd8'ii'+ should be answered by<br />

21...Wxd8. Alternatively, White can<br />

try 21 'ii'a8+ tDb8 22 exd8"ii'+ l:xd8<br />

23 l:e1 ! but with accurate play Black<br />

keeps the balance in the endgame after<br />

23 ... bxc3 24 .tf4 'ii'b6 (24 .. :iVb7? 25<br />

l:r.e7! +-) 25 bxc3 .tf5!. White will ultimately<br />

reach an ending with only<br />

two pawns for a piece but in reality<br />

Black's doubled c-pawns only count<br />

for one and Black's bishop will find it<br />

difficult coping with the white pawn<br />

phalanx on the kingside. After 26 h4<br />

Black has tried:<br />

a) 26 ... .te6?! 27 Wh2 l:d7!? (or<br />

27 ... 'ii'b2 28 l:e2! 'ii'b6 29 h5 .td5 30<br />

'ii'xb8+ 'i'xb8 31 .txb8 Wxb8 32<br />

l:d2! ± Nesis-Kujala, COIT. 1995-8) 28<br />

h5 ':b7, Yermolinsky-D.Gurevich,<br />

USA Ch 1994, and now 29 h6 would<br />

have promised White very good winning<br />

chances; e.g., 29 ... 'ii'b2 30 Wg1<br />

'ii'xc3 31 ':xe6! fxe6 32 .txb8 "ii'f3 33<br />

.td6+ ~d7 34 'ii'xb7+ 'ii'xb7 35 f7<br />

and White wins - Yermolinsky.<br />

b) Thus it seems better to force the<br />

endgame immediately with 26 .. :ii'b7!<br />

but the problem is of course that with<br />

27 'ii'xb7+ Wxb7 28 ':e7+ l:d7 29<br />

.txb8 Wxb8 30 l:xd7 (30 ':e5!?)<br />

30 ... .txd7 White forces Black into a<br />

very difficult ending, but at home<br />

Shirov had already found that Black<br />

can draw: 31 c;i;>g2 ~c7 32 ~f3 ~d6<br />

33 c;i;>f4 .tc6!! (the key move of Black's

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

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!