I shall begin with general considerations.

Sergey Ivanov introduced his list with such words: "October can be named the month of San Luis. Although one of the masterpieces presented by the world championship participants was played in the preceding month (Anand-Adams), the main dish awaited us in October. I had no special doubts concerning the top of the list: the games played in San Luis confidently occupied the first five spots. Other works presented to the judges by the all-seeing and all-knowing author of the section did not inspire me much, I should admit".

Sergey Zagrebelny joins the debates, "It is hard to be objective in assessing the quality of October games after San Luis. We involuntarily become hostages of the tournament status, star names of the participants, and of course thunderous success of Veselin Topalov.

And it is quite clear why almost half of the games suggested by the author of the section are from San Luis, and three of them are the victories of the new world champion.

However... I would like to thank tireless Maxim who is not lazy to shovel tons of ore searching for golden grains even in those places where nobody looks. Not only great players play brilliant games.

You can look at Habu's and Hudjakov's victories and compare them to Topalov's ones in Argentina. WC brought almost nothing creative and beautiful. Yes, Anand's victory over Adams was fine, but it was mainly the result of Vishy's home work. Some bright episodes, like draw combinations of Kasimjanov and Anand against Svidler and Morozevich respectively were memorable. The key word to characterize the world championship is "struggle". And many players just did not manage to bear the tension. Generally speaking, only one person was ready for it.

I was amazed by low resistance in general and especially by Topalov's opponents. Kasimjanov, Svidler, Adams were not showing anything at all. Veselin just played chess, often giving chances to his opponents, but they disregarded them like in agreement.

It was nothing similar to Topalov in the WC in Libya (a single victory over Kharlov costs a lot).

In conclusion I would like to make one suggestion. For the clarity of experiment I suggest to give only texts of the games without names of the players to the judges. Of course the murder will out, or I mean Topalov's game in Linares will out. And still. In this case for example Hudjakov will have more chances to go up in the top list".

I sincerely thank both speakers for having noted the services of the author. Their flattering assessments will give me moral help in the next laborious review of new games. The proposal made by Sergey Zagrebelny would have helped to make the judgment more objective, but in the era of Internet it is extremely hard to conceal information. We will end the year in an old manner, and then we will take counsel and decide whether there is sense in blindfold play.

And now about the essence of October question: we see two experts with opposite views. According to the results of the voting, we can conclude that both positions had followers in the jury. However, those who see the San Luis as both sporting and creative event prevail. On the other hand, Argentinean origin did not provide the game automatically with the place in top ten. It is curious that this time there were no game that entered the lists of all judges. Even the first two winners have got nine votes.

Here are the results.

October laureate is the Svidler-Kasimjanov game – 3 first places (Odessky, Potkin, Gleizerov), 2 second places, 2 third places.

Gleizerov: "I give the first place to Rustam Kasimjanov for his fantastically smart escape in the game against Svidler. Black had all the pieces on the board on 28th move, and five moves later there were only the rook and the knight left! It looked as if the opponents were playing at give-away. And in the end of this tornado a wonderful ending arose where White had an extra rook, extra bishop and a turn to move, the king was not under the check, but he still could not win! An additional value is given by the fact that it apparently was the only chance for Rustam to escape".

Zagrebelny: "Wonderful tactical vision allowed Rustam to make marvelous perpetual check. However, beforehand the play of both was, to put it mildly, far from perfect".

Ivanov: "It was an enchanting draw. Black, having passive a knight on e8 and disconnected rooks, against all the rules began a sudden attack by 24...Ґc3! And what is most wonderful, this attack could have ended in a success if Black had played 26...Јa7! with a knock-out idea 27.¤c6 Јa3!! instead of 26...Јc7. After Black's mistake the exchange of blows began, and in the end White had extra piece, but here Kasimjanov managed to escape smartly: 32...¦f2!! 33.¤a8 ¤a4! White has an extra rook and a bishop, but he cannot avoid the perpetual check. How can one but love chess after such happy moments!"

The Timofeev-Nisipeanu game got the second prize – 1 first place (Glek), 2 second places, 1 third place.

Zagrebelny: "I was amazed by the energy of the young Russian player. It seems that the opponent blundered in the end, but if such a famous tactician as Nisipeanu did not manage to improve the situation, Timofeev's achievement is really serious".

Let us congratulate Artyom with wonderful achievement, and consider the details on the board in the review.

The Svidler-Topalov game finished third overall – 1 first place (Solovjov), 1 third place.

Zagrebelny: "Topalov's becoming the world champion cannot stay unnoticed. He played very well against the bronze medalist and it is not his fault that the opponent did not manage to win..."

Gleizerov: "It was an extremely interesting and instructive ending for three results".

Ivanov: "Maybe this game contains some mistakes; subsequent analyses showed that White could have played stronger (for example, 27.Ґc4!? or 34.b5!?), but one cannot but note its outstanding competitive importance. And, concerning chess, the idea of Bulgarian team (14...Јa5! and 15...¤f3!) deserves praises and respect".

Sergey Solovjov, who gave the first prize to this encounter, also noted that "competitive importance of the game overweighed".

The Morozevich-Anand game got the 4th place – 2 first places (Kovalevskaya, Barskij), 1 third place.

Zagrebelny: "The Muscovite played good, but Vishy made almost everything himself, like in the game with Kasimjanov".

Then again "not San Luis": we have the haunter of our pedestal on the fifth place. Sutovsky-Stefanova – 1 first place (Zagrebelny).

Zagrebelny: "Emil pleased us with a perfect masterpiece again! He sacrificed a rook, then another rook broke into Black's rear by an intricate trajectory g3-a3-a7... It was cool!"

Gleizerov: "Emil demonstrated his famous art of attack again".

Ivanov: "Permanent laureate of our contest Emil Sutovsky has a temporary creative crisis now, and his usual sacrificial attack (recently he defeated a world champion, and now he beats the women's world champion) looks a bit too long and ponderous".

The Adams-Svidler game is on the 6th place (2 second places).

Gleizerov: "The co-author of the masterpiece that got the first place also had a chance to demonstrate his fantastic defensive skill. The incredible 22...h6!! is an evidence of superb ability. The game should enter all the textbooks".

7th place is given to Kasimjanov-Anand (1 third place).

Gleizerov: "One cannot but include the victory over Anand himself in the top ten. But it seems that 80 per cent of the victory was achieved by Rustam at home".

The Topalov-Kasimjanov is on the 8th place – 1 first place (Kosteniuk), 1 second and... 4 cases of absolute indifference.

Gleizerov: "There were some mistakes, but it was a great fight".

The situation with the Topalov-Adams game (9th place) is similar – 1 first place (Ivanov), 2 second places, 5 cases of indifference.

Ivanov: "From my point of view, this game characterizes Topalov's play in Argentina in the best way: non-trivial opening, energetic, strong play in the middlegame, accuracy and clearness in realizing the advantage. It is hard to say where exactly Adams made a mistake; he was just wiped off the board by the Bulgarian road-roller. And really, earlier such an impression was made only by Kasparov's victories".

Strictly speaking, I have to name one more game, but I will name three. Each of them got one third place and so they occupy one place according to the system of calculation adopted for my personal use: Gasanov-Kornev (special prize of Chigorin's Memorial), Bruzon-Carlsen and Wells-Habu. Each of the games Anand-Morozevich and Mecking-Assumpcao got one second place, but were not noticed at all by other experts.

In conclusion I will cite some more characteristics by Evgeny Gleizerov.

Bruzon-Carlsen: "It was a witty and deep positional piece sacrifice. Maybe Black could have defended in a stronger way, but from the practical point of view Bruzon was right in any case".

Jobava-Carlsen: "It was a horror movie – the utmost strong fist made from three pieces and two pairs of doubled pawns advances slowly but sternly, wiping everything off on its way".

Sundararajan-Sasikiran: "It seems that White managed to refute the home preparation of the dangerous opponent at the board".

Nakamura-Dreev: "In a sharp position White managed to exchange the pieces he needed to exchange and stay with a strong knight against a bad bishop".

And a couple of words by Sergey Ivanov.

Anastasian-I.Sokolov: "It was a filigree work and wonderful technical performance! And with such a dangerous opponent! Having started from the 17.b4! move, Ashot grips Ivan's position slowly (22.b6!, 28.g4!, 30.e5!) without giving him a single chance, like a boa constrictor. As I have recently come back from Israel, where I helped Armenian team during the world team championship, it is extremely pleasant for me to note Anastasian's victory".

Wells-Habu: "Famous English grandmaster and theoretician had White, and the name of the person who played Black tells me nothing. And still Black has won in marvelous style, having sacrificed a rook and a minor piece. Our planet is rich in chess talents! There is difference between finding 18...Ґh2!! while sitting at home with coffee and Fritz being put on, and doing it in the tournament hall with clock ticking. Even when the mentioned move is reproduced on the board, everything still looks unclear, but Black actually delivers the mate in 10 moves (he had to find winning move 24...¤c3! for that)".

I know something about the Japanese player that acted so cruel with famous English theorist. But I will tell about that as well as about his sacrifices and bright moments in other games in a few days in my review.