Botvinnik Semi-Slav, The (Pedersen)

92 THE BOTVINNIK SEMI-SLAV
The counter-attacking 15 ... 'iWa5?
has been more or less refuted by 16
'iWxe6+ 'itt>d8 17 i.g2! ltJxc3 18 ~f1!
ltJd5 19 'tWxc6ltJ5b6 (19 ... ltJc7 20 e6)
20 lth8 'iWb4 21 e6 l:tb8 22 exd7 ltJxd7
23 a3! ± Knaak-Van der Wiel, Lugano
1989. Note that Black cannot play
23 ... 'tWxb2? due to 24 l:txf8+! ltJxf8 25
'iWf6+ ~c7 26 'tWf4+ winning.
i.g2 i.b7 19 i.e4 0-0-0 20 i.xg6 'tWe7
21 a4! (White has to play aggressively
to maintain an advantage) 21...a6 22
l:th7 i.g7 23 i.e4ltg8 24 'tWf3 (Kamsky
suggests 24 lth5!? {intending
l:tg5} 24 ... ltd8!? 25 'iWg5 'fi'xg5 26
l:txg5 i.f8 27ltg6lte8;t) 24 ... ~c7 25
axb5 axb5, Kamsky-Serper, Groningen
PCA qual 1993, and now White's
best seems to be 26 'iWg4!? It is not
that easy for Black to free his position
while White might slowly build up
with f4, ~d2 and at some stage offer a
queen exchange with 'tWh4. The problem
with ... b4 for Black is that it
merely weakens his pawns and in the
current position, for example, they are
simply picked up by 27 l:ta4!.
There are now three possibilities
for White to increase the pressure:
A221: 16lth8 92
A222: 16 'iixg6+ 93
A223: 16 i.g2 95
A221)
16 l:th8 ltJxc3
The pin of the f8-bishop does not
look like a major problem, but it is
more annoying than it looks at first
sight. For instance, after 16 ... 'iWf7?
White has 17 ltJe4!.
17 bxc3 'fi'a3! (D)
Here the best defence is a counterattack.
17 ... 'tWf7 is more solid but also
a little passive. White continues 18
18 'iWxg6+
This is not the only option; White
can instead take the e6-pawn. This has
the advantage that White might be
able to rake in the c6-pawn too. Shirov
only mentions "18 'fi'xe6+? ~d8 +",
but Ftacnik takes this a little further,
viz. 19 l:tdl 'iWxc3+ and now: