Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

80 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
28 .te3? .txe3 29 fxe3 tDd2 30 'itg2
tDxbl 31 lIxbl lIh6 0-1
Quick Summary
The ... 'ii'a5 systems enjoyed a fair
amount of popularity from the mid-
1980s to the early 1990s but are now
rarely seen. This is first and foremost
in view of the line 12 ... .ta6 (12 ... b4 is
Line A and might transpose to Line B
after 13 tDe4 .ta6 14 'ii'f3 but White
has the additional possibility of 14
b3!?) 13 'ii'f3 (13 a3 was for long considered
promising for White but is less
clear in my opinion) 13 ... b4 14 tDe4
'ir'd5 (14 ... 0-0-0 is more often seen but
is not better) 15 .te3, when Black's
dynamic play does not seem to make
up for his structural weaknesses. This
is covered in Line B.
The Theory of Ideas with
.. :iia5
1 d4 d5 2 c4 c6 3 tDf3 tDf6 4 tDc3 e6 5
.tg5 dxc4 6 e4 b5 7 e5 h6 8 .th4 g5 9
tDxg5 hxg5 10 .txg5 tDbd7 11 g3
'ir'a5 12 exf6
Now:
A: 12 ... b4 80
B: 12 ... .ta6 81
A)
12 ... b4 13 tDe4 .ta6 (D)
14 b3!?
This principled decision is the main
reason that I prefer 12 ... .ta6 to 12 ... b4,
although they often transpose to each
other. White avoids any trouble on the
w
a5-el diagonal, while also trying to
take advantage of Black having placed
his bishop on a6 so early. Alternatives
are:
a) 14 \i'f3 transposes to Line B.
b) 14 .te2 0-0-0150-0 \i'f5 16 'ii'c2
tDb6 17 lIad 1 (positionally White's
game is very promising but he has to
be careful since there are several
slightly loose pieces, such as the g5-
bishop, the e4-knight and queen on c2;
17 f3 c5! 18 b3 .tb7 19 .txc4 tDxc4
20 bxc4 cxd4 21 'ii'd3 .txe4 22 'ir'xe4
'ir'xe4 23 fxe4 .tc5 24 ~g2 'ifi'b7 with
compensation, Shneider-Neverov, Lvov
1985) 17 ... 'ii'h3 18.th4 lIxh4 19 gxh4
.th6 was unclear in Timman-Torre,
Wijk aan Zee 1981.
c) 14 .te3 0-0-0 (14 ... 'ir'f5!?) 15
'ir'c2 tDb6 16 b3 transposes to the main
line.
14 ... 0-0-0
Other moves are also worth considering:
a) 14 ... 'iWd5!? 15 'ii'c2! cxb3 (according
to Levin, 15 ... tDb6 16 lIcl! is
much better for White) 16 axb3 .txfl