What Would You Play?

THE following very interesting position arose in the game Mikhail Botvinnk - Nikolay Sorokin, USSR Championship (Moscow) 1931.

Black has just played 19...e6-e5!?

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

*****

Botvinnik replied 20.Qe3!?

He wrote in One Hundred Selected Games: "This far-from-obvious move is the strongest in the given position. With the exchange of queens, which he cannot avoid, the defects of Black's position grow more perceptible. In view of the backwardness of his development Black now certainly cannot oppose anything to the pressure along the d file. His e pawn becomes very weak. To defend it Black finds himself forced to exchange a bishop for a knight at f3, after which not only his queenside but the square f7 is weakened. The doubling of the white pawns on the e file is of no essential importance."

Botvinnik awarded his move an exclamation mark, something he was rather sparing with.

Valery Chekov, annotating the game for ChessBase, also gives the move an exclamation mark, but without comment.

So far, so interesting, and arguably rather instructional, but what makes the position even more interesting is that modern engines strongly disagree with the grandmasters' verdict. 

Stockfish17 and Dragon1 fluctuate between calling the move dubious (flashing yellow) and calling it a mistake (flashing red).

The former reckons both 20.Rc2 and 20.Rd6 give a winning position, while Dragon1 agrees on 20.Rd6 but assesses 20.Qe3!? as second-best, albeit 'only' good enough for the upper hand.

Who to believe?

If the situation were tactical, there is usually - I stress 'usually', rather than invariably - little doubt engines' verdicts are the more reliable.

But the situation is positional, and, to a certain extent, Dragon1, at least, is unsure as to the best continuation (20.h3 and 20.Rc2 get a look-in as being second-best, with the later sometimes overtaking 20.Rd6 as Dragon1's preferred option).

All-in-all, perhaps it is best to sum up the verdict as unclear.