This part of my review contains 'tasty' moments of the women's championship as I have promised. Only the Higher League stays out of its share... though your author tried to be objective in his choices.

The leader of 'TPS' team Vassily Ivanchuk went trough his distance evenly and solidly without a single loss. However, his teammates could not reach corresponding high level, so the team did not repeat last-year success.

Ivanchuk (2729) – Miton (2653)  C92

1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.Ґb5 a6 4.Ґa4 ¤f6 5.O-O Ґe7 6.¦e1 b5 7.Ґb3 d6 8.c3 O-O 9.h3 Ґb7 10.d4 ¦e8 11.¤g5 ¦f8 12.¤f3 ¦e8 13.¤bd2 Ґf8 14.a4 ¤a5!? A standard line – 14...h6 15.Ґc2 exd4 16.cxd4 ¤b4 17.Ґb1 c5 18.d5 ¤d7 19.¦a3 and so on.

15.Ґc2

15...b4! A fashionable move by Morozevich.

16.Ґd3!?N. In Grischuk – Morozevich, Monte Carlo 2006, and Wang Hao – Jakovenko, Taiwan 2006 there was 16.d5 bxc3 17.bxc3 c6 18.c4 Јc7 and Black has no complaints; 16.cxb4 ¤c6 17.¤b3 ¤xb4 18.¤a5 Јb8 19.d5 c6 20.dxc6 draw, Motylev – Pavasovic, Dresden 2007. Ivanchuk, as ever, has his own opinion.

16...bxc3 17.bxc3 d5!? A crucial moment. A vivid collision in the centre begins.

18.exd5!18.dxe5? dxe4 is in favour of Black. 18.¤xe5 is much more interesting which might be followed by 18...dxe4 19.¤xe4?! ¤xe4 20.¦xe4! (if 20.Ґxe4 then 20...Ґxe4 21.¦xe4 f6, and even 22.¤f7 does not save a piece due to cold 22...Јd5) 20...Ґxe4 21.Ґxe4 ¦xe5 22.Ґxa8 c6 – the bishop on a8 is not a good feature of the position. Stronger is19.Ґc2! Ґd6 (in case of 19...c5 20.¤xe4 ¤xe4 a sacrifice of the exchange 21.¦xe4! Ґxe4 22.Ґxe4 looks better) 20.f4 with mutual chances. But Ivanchuk's move is the most accurate.

18...exd4. On 18...Јxd5 follows 19.c4 and then 20.d5.

19.¦xe8 Јxe8 20.c4

20...c6? A significant mistake. Black should prevent White's next move by 20...¦b8!, and if 21.¤xd4 then 21...c6 22.dxc6 (22.¤2f3!?) 22...¤xc6 23.¤xc6 Ґxc6 – good co-ordination of black pieces compensates a pawn.

21.¤b3! Black's position becomes shaky immediately.

21...Јd8. Neither 21...¤xb3 22.Јxb3± nor 21...Ґb4 22.Ґa3 Ґc3 23.¦b1± solves problems.

22.¦b1 Ґc8? The loss of the c6-pawn is unrecoverable. 22...¦a7 would give some chances to escape but not against Vassily Ivanchuk, I think.

23.¤xa5 Јxa5 24.dxc6. Black cannot arrange his forces.

24...Ґc5 25.Ґf4 Ґe6 26.¤g5 ¦e8 27.¤xe6 fxe6 28.Ґe5 Ґb6 29.Ґxf6 gxf6

30.Ґxh7+! The most reliable way to win. White forces transition to a queen endgame.

30...ўxh7 31.¦xb6! Јxb6 32.Јh5+ ўg7 33.Јxe8 Јb1+ 34.ўh2 Јe4 35.g3 d3 (35...Јe2 36.Јd7+ ўg6 37.Јxd4ќ) 36.Јd7+ ўg6 37.c7 1-0

'Elara's experienced player was of use in struggle for bronze medals. In the following game Evgeny Bareev managed to carry out a very unexpected positional sacrifice of a piece.

Shomoev (2551) – Bareev (2643)  B12

1.e4 c6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Ґf5 4.h4 h6 5.g4 Ґd7

6.¤d2!? Vladimir Kramnik succeeded with this line in the decisive game versus Leko, Brissago 2004. Bareev had been a second to Vladimir in that match.

6...e6 7.¤b3 c5. Ivanchuk's continuation 7...a5!? 8.a4 ¤a6 has been tested in Kurnosov – Ivanchuk, Kusadasi 2006, and Kurnosov – Cheparinov, Dresden 2007.

8.¤xc5 Ґxc5 9.dxc5 Јa5+ 10.c3 Јxc5 11.h5!?N. White deprives the black knight of the g6-square though not for a long time. Kramnik in the game mentioned preferred 11.¤f3.

11...¤e7 12.¤f3 ¤bc6

13.Ґf4. If 13.Ґe3 Јa5 14.Јb3 intending to castle to the queenside, then Black might dare to play 14...d4!? 15.¤xd4 ¤xe5 16.Јxb7 O-O with good compensation for a pawn. Bareev himself recommended 13.¦g1!?.

13...g5!? A non-trivial decision.

14.Ґg3. The bishop is unlucky. I would not recommend 14.Ґe3 (in order to provoke g7-g5). More natural is 14.hxg6 ¤xg6 15.Ґg3 creating a weakness on h6. Now, in case of 15...O-O-O (15...¤a5 loses control of d4) 16.Јd2 Јa5 17.Ґe2 (17.¦xh6 ¦xh6 18.Јxh6 d4 is of no use) White stands slightly better.

14...O-O-O 15.Ґd3 d4 16.c4. Seemingly restricting the knight on e7 but...

16...¤f5!? The first thought: if Bareev plays so, maybe he does not like his position (especially possible transfer of the white knight f3-d3-e4). The piece sacrifice is purely positional. Black will capture 2-3 pawns, shut the dark-squared bishop out of play and will think about attacking the king. In case of 16...¤b4 17.a3 ¤xd3+ 18.Јxd3 White is about to move his pawns on the queenside.

17.gxf5 exf5 18.Ґh2 f4! 18...g4 19.¤d2 ¤xe5 20.Јb3 ¤xd3+ 21.Јxd3 ¦he8+ 22.ўd1 is to White's benefit.

19.Јb3. Interesting is 19.Јe2!? to keep the knight on f3 defended and to castle to the queenside.

19...Ґg4. High-principled, but 19...g4!? 20.Ґxf4 gxf3 21.Јb5 regaining material might be more prudent, though White is slightly better here.

20.Ґe4. 20.O-O Ґxf3 21.Ґf5+ ўb8 22.Јxf3 ¤xe5 is of little sense.

20...¦he8 21.O-O. If 21.0-0-0 then 21...f5!, and White's bishop cannot step on d5.

21...Ґxh5 22.¤e1. Logically but a bit sluggishly. On 22.Јb5 Black might play 22...Јxb5 23.cxb5 Ґxf3 24.Ґxf3 ¤xe5. Deserves attention 22.¦fe1!? and if 22...g4 then 23.Јb5!.

22...Јxe5 (22...Ґe2 23.¤d3) 23.Ґxc6. 23.Јh3+?! g4 24.Јh4 Јxe4 25.Јxh5 ¦g8! и 23.Ґf3?! Ґxf3 24.Јxf3 (24.¤xf3 Јf5) 24...d3! 25.¤xd3 Јf5 is in favour of Black.

23...bxc6

24.Јh3+! The queen goes to defend his king and forces the opponent to move the g-pawn. 24.¤d3?! Јf5. is dangerous.

24...g4 25.Јg2 Јe4 26.¤d3! The knight is 'poisoned' (26...Јxd3? 27.Јxc6+ ўb8 28.Ґxf4+). Shomoev defends successfully; he might fix a draw by 26.Ґxf4 Јxf4 27.Јxc6+ Јc7 28.Јa8+ Јb8 (else the bishop on h5 is lost) 29.Јc6+=.

26...g3. 26...Јxg2+ 27.ўxg2 f3+ 28.ўg1 is not so interesting.

27.fxg3 f3?! Black should play 27...Ґe2 28.Јxe4 ¦xe4 29.¤xf4 Ґxf1 30.ўxf1 d3 with an unclear ending.

28.Јd2 Јe3+ 29.¦f2 Ґg4. Blockade of the g3-pawn.

30.¦e1. A move without threats, so 30.¦d1at once is more accurate

30...¦e6! Looks very effective; may be the opponent was impressed.

31.¦d1. 31.¦xe3? dxe3 32.Јc3 ¦xd3! 33.Јxd3 with wide possibilities for Black (33...exf2+!?; 33...e2!?).

31...¦de8 32.¤f4?! White are strong enough already to begin act energetically. Better is 32.Јa5! ўb7, and now not 33.¤b4 Јxf2+! 34.ўxf2 ¦e2+ with perpetual check but 33.b4! followed by b4-b5.

32...¦e4 33.ўh1? Again, good is 33.Јa5! ўb8 (33...ўb7 34.¤d3!) 34.Јa4 ўb7 35.¤d3!

33...Јxd2! To an endgame when lacking a piece!

34.¦fxd2? A decisive miss. After 34.¦dxd2 ¦e1+ 35.Ґg1 ¦a1 36.¤d3 White should not lose.

34...f2! 35.¦f1 ¦xf4! Now black has an extra material. In technical stage Bareev is irreproachable as always.

36.ўg2 (36.gxf4? Ґf3#) 36...¦fe4 37.¦fxf2 f5 38.Ґg1. 38.b4 ¦d8 39.¦d3 Ґe2 40.¦d2 Ґxc4 41.¦xf5 d3 is joyless too.

38...c5 39.a3 a5! 40.b4 axb4 41.axb4 cxb4 42.¦b2

42...f4! Very clear and concrete realization.

43.gxf4. In case of  43.¦xf4 d3 the passed pawns are unstoppable.

43...¦g8! 44.ўh2 (44.¦xb4 Ґf5+ 45.ўh2 (45.ўf3 ¦e3#; 45.ўf1 Ґh3+; 45.ўh1 ¦e1 46.¦g2 Ґe4) 45...¦e3°) 44...¦e3 45.¦f1 (45.¦xb4 ¦h3+ 46.ўg2 Ґf5+ 47.ўf1 Ґd3+°) 45...¦h3+ 46.ўg2 Ґf5+ 47.ўf2 b3. White resigned. 0-1

'Elara's youth was also good. Thanks to Ian Nepomniachtchi.

Nepomniachtchi (2602) – Kurnosov (2566)

32.Јd6! Ian begins to tune co-ordination of his queen and knight for an attack.

32...ўg8. The best move, as a check from f6 is mortal: 32...¦g8? 33.Јf6+ ¦g7 34.h5ќ; 32...¦e8? 33.Јf6+ ўg8 34.Јg5+ ўh8 35.¤g4 Јc6 36.¤h6ќ. And 32...Јb4? 33.Јf6+ ўg8 leads to the position in the game after move 35.

33.Јd2! Јb4? Prolonged and, most probably, fruitless suffering waited Black in case of the only possible 33...Јd4! 34.Јg5+ ўh8 35.Јh6 Јd8 (35...¦c8 36.f6 ¦g8 37.¤f3! ¦xg3+ 38.ўh2 ¦g6 39.Јf8+ ¦g8 40.Јxg8+ ўxg8 41.¤xd4 Ґxd4 42.h5! и 43.¦b1) 36.¤f3 f6 37.¦b1 Ґa3 38.¦b7 Ґe7 39.Јe3.

34.Јg5+ ўh8 35.Јf6+ (35.¤g4 e4) 35...ўg8 36.¦b1! a4?! Loses immediately, but 36...¦b8 does not help also: 37.Јg5+ ўh8 38.¤g4 Јf8 39.Јf6+ Јg7 40.Јd6! ¦c8 41.¦xb2 Јxg4 42.Јxe5+ Јg7 (42...ўg8 43.Јxa5) 43.f6 Јh6 44.ўg2 ўg8 45.¦b5 a4 46.¦a5ќ.

37.¦xb2! Јxb2 38.¤g4 Јc1+ 39.ўh2 a3 (39...h5 40.¤h6+ ўh7 41.¤xf7ќ) 40.¤h6+ Јxh6 41.Јxh6 1-0

It is time to speak of the main triumphants. 'Tomsk-400' is strong, first of all, as a team. It is not accidental that examples of play of majority of the excellent eight is present in this review. Let us begin with Dmitry Jakovenko.

Jakovenko (2708) – Tiviakov (2663)  E32

1.d4 ¤f6 2.c4 e6 3.¤c3 Ґb4 4.¤f3 b6 5.Јc2 Ґb7 6.a3 Ґxc3+ 7.Јxc3 d6 8.e3 ¤bd7 9.Ґe2 O-O 10.O-O c5. Rather quiet scheme but with inner tension.

11.b4 ¦c8 12.Ґb2 ¤e4 13.Јb3. If Black would play ¤e4 earlier, then White would have to retreat with his queen to c2.

13...Јc7 14.¦fd1

14...¦fe8N. Played earlier 14...d5 seems not good in view of pair of white bishops. After 15.dxc5 bxc5 16.¦ac1 Black has troubles.

15.¦ac1 a5. Avoiding squeezing on the queenside. It is difficult for Black to find an active plan. Thus, aggressive f7-f5 is inconsistent with developing the queen on c7.

16.¤d2 ¤xd2 17.¦xd2 axb4 18.axb4 ¤b8?  Bad position for the knight. More logic is 18...cxd4 19.Ґxd4 (19.exd4 ¤f6; 19.¦xd4 ¤e5) 19...¦a8 (19...e5!?), or 18...¦a8 with a slightly worse but firm position.

19.dxc5! Just in time.

19...dxc5. Or 19...bxc5 20.bxc5! (Black lacks the knight on d7; worse is 20.¦cd1 cxb4! 21.Јxb4 d5) 20...dxc5 21.¦cd1 Ґc6 22.Јc3 f6 23.Ґg4±.

20.Јc3. 20.bxc5!? is not bad but Jakovenko intends to seize more room.

20...f6 21.b5 ¦cd8. Maybe Black should make mass trading on the d-file as it happened several moves later.

22.¦cd1 Ґe4 23.Ґg4 ўf7 24.f3! It is time to use the central pawn.

24...Ґg6 25.e4 ўe7?! Makes hard situation even worse. 25...¦xd2 26.Јxd2 ¦e7 is preferable.

26.e5! Taking d6 under control.

26...f5 27.Ґh3 ¦xd2 28.¦xd2 ¦d8 29.¦d6! Simple and aesthetic. The rook will be standing under attack for some time, but its capture is dangerous.

29...Ґf7 30.Јe1! Such positions are not defendable.

30...g5 (30...¦xd6? 31.exd6+ Јxd6 32.Ґe5 Јd8 33.Јh4+ќ) 31.g3 h6. Again, bad is 31...¦xd6 32.exd6+ Јxd6 33.Ґxf5.

32.Јa1. Computer assures that 32.Ґxf5!? exf5 33.¦xh6 is better, but what for?

32...ўe8 33.Ґg2 Ґg8 (33...¦xd6? 34.exd6 Јxd6 35.Ґe5 Јd8 36.Ґxb8 Јxb8 37.Јh8+ќ) 34.Јd1 ўe7 35.Јa1 ўe8 36.h4. Dmitry shakes loose the opponent's position and here a mistake follows...

36...ўf7? 36...gxh4 is much more persistent.

37.hxg5 hxg5 38.Јc1 ўg6

39.Јd2! Forcing capture on d6 which leads to catastrophe on the big diagonal.

39...¦xd6. If 39...¦d7 then 40.Ґh3 threatening with 41.Ґxf5+!

40.exd6 Јd8 41.Јc3 Јf8 42.f4! Another big diagonal is seized also!

42...gxf4 43.gxf4 ¤d7 44.Ґc6 ¤f6 45.d7 1-0

Another masterpiece of Alexander Morozevich.

Morozevich (2762) – Lputian (2634)  C18

1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.¤c3 Ґb4 4.e5 ¤e7 5.a3 Ґxc3+ 6.bxc3 c5 7.h4!? Rather fresh line as compared to 7.Јg4.

7...¤bc6 8.h5 Јa5 9.Ґd2 Ґd7. 9...h6 is not very good here as after 10.Јg4 it is difficult to defend the pawn on g7.

10.h6!? gxh6! Lputian defended this position earlier, last time against Nigel Short, Taiwan 2004.

11.¦b1. A rare move. Usual continuation is 11.¤f3.

11...O-O-O

12.¦b5!?N. A step aside from a game of little known chessplayers.

12...Јa4. On 12...Јxa3 White would play not 13.¦xc5 a6! (hunting a rook) 14.Јb1 ўc7 15.¦h3 b6 16.c4 Јa4 17.Јc1! bxc5 18.¦a3 ¤xd4 19.Ґa5+ ўc8 20.¦xa4 Ґxa4 21.Ґxd8 (or 21.Ґd3 dxc4 22.Ґxd8 ¦xd8 23.Ґxc4 ¤xc2+ 24.ўe2 ўb7) 21...¤c2+ 22.ўd2 ¦xd8, but 13.Јb1!? and if 13...cxd4 14.¦xb7 dxc3 15.Ґe3 ¤f5? then 16.Ґc5!! (www.crestbook.com) 16...Јa4 (16...Јxc5 17.Ґa6ќ) 17.Ґxa7 Јe4+ 18.Ґe2 Јxe5 19.Јb6 winning. The latter variation is not obligatory, of course.

13.Јb1! Weak is 13.¦xc5? b6 14.¦b5 ¤xd4!

13...¤a5. Also, Black might consider 13...¤xd4!? 14.cxd4 Ґxb5 15.Ґxb5 Јxd4 16.¤f3 Јg4 or 13...b6!? 14.dxc5 Јe4+ (or 14...¤xe5 15.¦b4 Јxa3 16.cxb6 axb6 17.¦xb6 Ґc6) 15.ўd1 ¤xe5 16.¦xb6! Ґc6!

14.¦xc5+ ўb8

15.¦h3! That is why White did not hurry to develop his knight on f3.  Also good is 15.Ґxh6!? setting the g5-point free for the bishop.

15...b6 (15...Јxa3? 16.c4ќ) 16.¦f3?! Immediate 16.¦b5! is more accurate, preventing Black's possibility on the next move.

16...ўa8. Stronger is 16...¤f5! in order on 17.g4 to answer 17...¦hg8! (17...¤b7 18.¦b5 ¤h4 19.¦h3 ¤g2+ 20.ўd1 Ґxb5 21.Ґxb5 Јa5 22.¦h2±) 18.¦f4 h5! intercepting initiative.

17.¦b5! Morozevich is not interested in peace negotiations after 17.¦c7 ўb8 18.¦c5.

17...¤c4. 17...Ґxb5? 18.Ґxb5 Јxa3 19.Ґc1ќ loses the queen, and  17...¤f5 would be followed not by 18.g4?! ¦hg8 but 18.¤e2.

18.¦b4! Morozevich evaluates coming endgame correctly. Weaker is 18.Ґxc4 Јxc4 19.¦b4 Јa6 20.¦xf7 ¤c6 21.¦b2 ¤a5 with a good play for Black.

18...¤xa3 19.¦xa4 ¤xb1 20.¦a1 ¤xd2 21.ўxd2. Black's extra pawn is of no importance and White begins to occupy weaknesses on the kingside.

21...¦df8 22.Ґd3 ¦hg8 23.g3 h5? Almost only serious mistake by Lputian. In case of more quiet tactics, for instance 23...¦g5!? 24.¤e2 (24.Ґxh7 ¦h5) 24...¦h5 25.¤f4 ¦h2, Black should not lose.

24.¤e2 h4 25.¦h1! White needs open files.

25...hxg3 26.¤xg3 ¦h8 27.¤h5. An obvious route.

27...¤g8?! It is better to admit the knight on f6.

28.¦g1 f5?! Now the e6-pawn becomes weak, and White invades seventh rank. 28...ўb7 is more persistent tough after 29.¦g7 ўc6 (29...Ґe8 30.c4! ¤e7 31.cxd5 ¤xd5 32.Ґe4) 30.c4! (30.¦fxf7? ¦xf7 31.¦xf7 Ґe8) 30...dxc4 31.Ґxc4 b5 32.Ґd3 Black would hardly escape.

29.¦g7 Ґc8 30.¤f4 ¤h6

31.c4! Breaking pawn skeleton in the centre. Black's position is hopeless.

31...dxc4 32.Ґxc4 ¦d8. Variations with giving away the e6-pawn where White would obtain tied passed pawns are not worth considering.

33.c3 ¤g4. The knight will be trapped soon.

34.ўe2 ¦he8. Or 34...¦de8 35.¦h3 h5 36.f3 ¤h6 37.¦xh5ќ.

35.¦h3! There is no satisfactory defence against f2-f3 with catching of Black's knight.

35...¦d7 36.¦xd7 Ґxd7 37.¦xh7 b5 38.Ґb3 Ґc8 39.f3 a5 40.fxg4 1-0

Rustam Kasimdzhanov won an important game against a formidable opponent. Rather, Viktor L'vovich himself gave away the good-standing game.

Kasimdzhanov (2677) – Korchnoi (2603)

28...¤xd5? An offensive miss. After 28...Ґe4! 29.Ґxe4 (29.Јb2 Ґxf3 30.exf3 Јxh2) 29...¤xe4 30.ўb1 Јxh2 White lacks a pawn in a hard position.

29.Ґxd5 a5. That was the idea. 29...¦d7 30.Ґc3 ¦xd5 31.¦c4!ќ does not help.

30.Јb2 ¦c2

31.Ґxf7! Black seems to lose sight of this resource hoping for 31.Јb6? ¦xd2 32.Јd8+ Ґg8 33.Ґxf7 Јxd4+ 34.Јxd4 ¦xd4.

31...¦xb2 32.¦d8+ 1-0

'Ural' also looked excellently. I would distinguish Alexander Grischuk in this team. But for his brilliant play the 'golden' match could never take place.

Grischuk (2717) – Timofeev (2658)  B67

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 ¤c6 6.Ґg5 e6 7.Јd2 a6 8.O-O-O Ґd7 9.f3 ¦c8 10.ўb1 Ґe7 11.h4 h6 12.Ґe3 h5 13.¤xc6 Ґxc6 14.¤e2 d5 15.e5 ¤d7 16.f4 g6. Topalov playing against Ponomariov (Leon 2003) got rid of his bishop by 16...Ґb5 but did not solve all problems.

17.¤d4

17...¤c5!?N. Risky is 17...Ґxh4?! 18.¤xc6 ¦xc6 (18...bxc6 19.Ґxa6± Makropoulou – Petraki, Athens 2003) 19.c4 ¤b6 20.Ґxb6 ¦xb6 21.Јe3!? with White's initiative.

18.Ґd3 Јb6 19.ўa1 a5. 20.¦c1 Ґd7 21.Јe2 Јb4?! Soon the queen will regret about his location.

22.g3 ўf8 23.¦cg1 ўe8 24.¦d1 Ґa4. This move is not to Black's benefit too.

25.¦c1 ¤xd3 26.cxd3. After the exchange on d3 Black should beware of a2-a3.

26...ўd7?! A serious inaccuracy, rather miss. Better is 26...Ґd7 (immediately, or after 26...¦xc1).

27.f5! In case of 27.a3 Јb6 the white knight has no good move, and 28.f5!? Ґc5 29.fxe6+ fxe6 30.¦hf1 ¦hf8 still allows Black to continue defending.

27...Ґc5? A crucial mistake. Weak is 27...exf5? 28.a3 Јb6 29.Јf3 but 27...gxf5 28.¦xc8 ўxc8 (28...¦xc8 29.Јxh5) 29.a3 Јb6 30.¦c1+ ўb8 31.¤xf5 or 27...Ґb5! 28.a3 Јa4 would be more persistent...

28.fxe6+ fxe6

29.¦hf1! There is no escape for Black.

29...¦hf8. Other variations:

29...Ґxd4 30.¦f7+ ўe8 (30...ўd8 31.Ґg5+ќ; 30...Јe7 31.¦xe7+ ўxe7 32.¦xc8 ¦xc8 33.Ґg5+ ўe8 34.Јf3ќ) 31.¦xc8+ ўxf7 32.Јf2+ ўe7 33.¦xh8ќ;

29...¦h7 30.¤xe6! ўxe6 31.¦f6+ ўd7 (31...ўe7 32.d4ќ) 32.Јf3 ўd8 33.Јxd5+ ¦d7 34.Јg8+ ўc7 35.Ґxc5 Јxb2+ 36.ўxb2 ¦xg8 37.d4ќ;

29...¦he8 30.a3 Јb6 31.¦f7+ ¦e7 (31...Ґe7 32.¦xc8 ўxc8 33.¤f5ќ) 32.Јf2ќ;

29...Ґe7 30.¦xc8 ¦xc8 31.a3 Јb6 32.¦f7 ¦e8 33.Јf1!ќ (threatening with 34.¤f5 и 34.Јf6).

30.¤xe6! An elegant final combination.

30...¦xf1 (30...ўxe6 31.¦xf8ќ) 31.Јxf1 Ґxe3 32.Јf7+ Јe7 33.¤f8+! Black resigned in view of 33...¦xf8 34.¦c7+ or 34.Јxd5+! 1-0

Before telling about most interesting events of the final round in Premier League I offer a small hit parade of the women's tournament.

Tairova(2414) – Gaponenko (2451)  B54

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.f3 ¤c6 6.c4 Јb6 7.¤c2 e6 8.¤c3 Ґe7 9.Ґe2 O-O 10.¦b1 ¦d8 11.Ґe3 Јc7 12.O-O

12...d5! A classic breakthrough in the centre.

13.¤b5?!N. Not a good novelty. After 13.cxd5 exd5 14.exd5 Ґe6 White might choose between 15.¤b5 Јe5 16.d6= and more ambitious 15.dxe6!? ¦xd1 16.exf7+ ўxf7 17.¦fxd1› Bar – Lerner, Tel Aviv 2002.

13...Јb8 14.exd5 exd5 15.Јc1. In case of 15.c5 a6 16.¤bd4 Black might play 16...Ґxc5!

15...Ґf5! 16.Ґf4? White does not wish to give up initiative but he should choose something modest, for example 16.¦a1.

16...Јc8 17.g4. After 17.¤c7 ¤h5! 18.¤xd5 (18.¤xa8 Ґxc2) 18...¤xf4 19.¤xf4 Ґg5 White's position is also difficult.

17...Ґg6 18.¤c7

18...d4!  No respite for White.

19.¤xa8 d3 20.Ґxd3 Ґxd3 21.¤c7 Ґc5+ 22.ўh1 (or 22.ўg2 ¤xg4!) 22...¤xg4! Inna Gaponenko conducts the final attack in one breath.

23.Ґg3 Јf5 24.b4 ¤f2+! 25.¦xf2 Ґxf2 26.Ґxf2 Јxf3+ 27.ўg1 Ґe4! Everything is over.

28.ўf1 Јh3+ 29.ўe1 Јc3+ 30.ўf1 Ґxc2 31.¦a1 Јh3+ 32.ўe1 Јc3+ 33.ўf1 Јxc4+ 34.ўg2 Јg4+ 35.Ґg3 Јe2+ 36.Ґf2 Ґe4+ 37.ўg1 Јf3 38.ўf1 Јg2+ 0-1

Komiagina (2288) – Zdebskaja (2335)

21.b4! Else b5-b4 outstripping in attack. Now the most interesting things begin.

21...axb4 22.axb4 ¦a8! An unexpected decision. Black does not want to retreat though 22...¤a6 leads to approximate balance.

23.bxc5?! Accepting challenge. 23.e5! ¤a6 (23...Јa6!? 24.bxc5 ¦xc5 25.Јxd6 Јxd6 26.exd6 ¦xc3 27.ўb2) 24.Јxb6 ¦xb6 25.¦xd6 ¦xd6 26.exd6 ¤xb4 27.Ґb3 Ґc6 28.¦e5 was worth considering – Black must be accurate here.

23...Јa5 24.h5! The only chance for White is to attack.

24...¦xc5 (24...b4? 25.h6 e5 26.Јd5 ¦c7 27.Јxd6ќ)

25.g6? Leads to a loss. Correct is 25.h6! Јxc3 (25...e5? 26.Јxd6 ¦xc3 27.Ґxf7+!ќ) 26.Јxc3 ¦xc3 27.¦xd6.

25...¦xc3 26.gxf7+ ўxf7 27.Ґxe6+. Desperation.

27...ўxe6 28.Јxd6+ ўf7 29.Јd7+ ўg8 30.ўc1 Јb4 0-1

Nebolsina (2297) – Gromova (2252)

33.Ґe7! The bishop must go to the big diagonal.

33...¦c6? The rook must stand on c6 but at first it should entice the white king to a bad square: 33...¦c1+! 34.ўf2 (34.ўh2 ¦c6 35.d5 Ґxd5! 36.¦xd5 Јc7+ 37.¦d6! Јxe7! 38.¦xc6 Јxh4+ 39.ўg1 Јe1+= – perpetual check number 1) 34...¦c2+! 35.ўg3 ¦c6 36.d5 Ґxd5! 37.¦xd5 Јc7+ 38.¦d6! Јxe7! 39.¦xc6 Јe1+ 40.ўh3 (40.ўf4? Јd2+) 40...Јh1+ 41.ўg3 Јe1+= – perpetual check number 2.

34.d5! Now Black cannon escape.

34...¦a6 35.Ґa3 (or 35.d6) 35...¦a8 36.Ґb2. The bishop reached its destiny. Threatens 37.¦e8+!

36...Јc5+ 37.ўh1 Јf8

38.Јh8+! A dessert.

38...ўxh8 39.¦xh5+ ўg8 40.¦h8#. 1-0

Galliamova (2477) – Grabuzova (2357)

24...¤c4! A very nice and well calculated combination.

25.Јxc4. Other moves are not better.

25...¤xe3+! 26.fxe3 ¦d2+ 27.ўh3. After 27.ўg1 Јxf3 28.Јf1 Јxe3+ 29.ўh1 ¦f2! 30.Јh3 Black has 30...¦xa4 31.cxb6 (31.¦e1 ¦xa3) 31...cxb6(premature is 31...¦h4? 32.bxc7 ¦xh3 33.c8Ј+ ўf7 34.¦c7+ ўg6 35.¦xg7+! ўxg7 36.Јf8+ ўg6 37.Јe8+ ўg5 38.Ґe7+ ўg4 39.¦a4+ f4 40.Јg8+ ўf3 41.Јa8+! ўe2 42.¦a2+ ўf1 43.¦a1+ ўe2=) 32.¦c8+ ўf7 33.Јh5+ ўf6 34.¦f8+ ўe5 35.¦xf5+ ¦xf5 36.Ґb2+ ¦d4° or convincing 30...g5!°.

27...Јxf3. Threatening 28...Јg2+ with checkmate on h6.

28.¦h1 (28.¦g1 Јh5+ 29.Јh4 Јe2°; 28.Јxe6+ ўh8 29.¦c4 Јg2+ 30.ўh4 Јxh2+ 31.ўg5 Јxg3+ 32.ўxf5 ¦f8+ 33.ўe4 Јf3+ 34.ўe5 Јxe3+°) 28...Јh5+ 29.Јh4 Јe2 30.¦ag1. The most persistent. Bad is 30.Јb4 g5 or 30.Јf4 h6! 

30...h5! With the beautiful idea 31.cxb6 ўh7!! 32.b7 ¦h8!! and 33...Јg4+. Prosaic 30...h6 was also possible.

31.Јf4. 31.Ґc1 ¦a2 cannot change anything.

31...ўf7. Computer-like 31...g5!? 32.Јxg5+ ўf7 was possible with inevitable mate in 9.

32.ўh4 g5+! 33.Јxg5. Also good is 33.ўxg5 ¦g8+ 34.ўh6 ¦dd8 35.Јxc7+ ўf6°.

33...¦g8. Better is 33...Јxh2+ 34.¦xh2 ¦xh2#.

34.Јxg8+ ўxg8 35.g4 hxg4 36.Ґc1 ¦d7 37.cxb6 cxb6 38.ўg5 Јc2 39.h3 ¦g7+ 40.ўh4 Јf2+. White resigned. 0-1

Now I shall tell about crucial moments of the 'golden match'. The success of 'Tomsk-400' has been predetermined in a significant degree by a fast win by Pavel Smirnov.

Smirnov (2631) – Sakaev (2633)  C78

1.e4 e5 2.¤f3 ¤c6 3.Ґb5 a6 4.Ґa4 ¤f6 5.O-O Ґc5 6.c3 b5 7.Ґb3 d6 8.a4 Ґg4 9.axb5 axb5 10.¦xa8 Јxa8 11.h3 Ґxf3 12.Јxf3 O-O 13.d3

13...Јa1?!N. Maybe 13...¤a5 14.Ґc2 (14.Ґd1!? www.crestbook.com) 14...b4 is more prudent, Jakovenko – Landa, Dresden 2007.

14.Јe2! An useful move plus indirect defence of the knight: 14...Јxb1? 15.Ґg5.

14...¤a5. Continuing to conduct the wrong plan.

15.Ґc2 b4?! Underestimating White's answer. Better is 15...¤c6 making the bishop to leave the a2-g8 diagonal; White could play 16.b4 Ґb6 17.Ґb3.

16.d4! While black pieces are on the queenside, White intends to checkmate on the kingside.

16...exd4. If 16...b3 then 17.Ґd3! (worse is 17.dxc5 bxc2 18.Јxc2 dxc5) 17...exd4 18.Ґg5! ¤c6 (preventing e4-e5) 19.¤a3 Јa2 20.Ґxf6 gxf6 21.Ґb1 Јa1 22.e5!ќ.

17.cxb4 Ґxb4 18.e5! dxe5. Loses18...¤d7 19.Јb5! ¤c5 (19...¤xe5 20.Јxb4 d3 21.¤a3) 20.Јxb4 d3 21.¤a3 ¤c6 22.Јc3 dxc2 23.exd6 cxd6 24.Ґh6!ќ. Also useless is 18...¤e8 19.e6 fxe6 20.Јxe6+ ўh8 21.Јe7 ¦g8 (21...ўg8 22.Ґxh7+ ўxh7 23.Јxf8ќ) 22.Ґxh7! ўxh7 23.Јe4+ g6 24.Јh4+ ўg7 25.¤c3!?ќ.

19.Ґg5! The main threat is 20.Ґxf6 gxf6 21.Јg4+ ўh8 22.Јf5 with checkmate on h7, another one is 20.¤c3 winning the queen. Sakaev's position is very hard.

19...¦b8. 19...¤d7 20.¤c3 Јxb2 21.Ґxh7+ ўxh7 22.Јxb2 Ґxc3 23.Јa2ќ or 19...h5 20.Ґxf6 gxf6 21.¤c3 Јxb2 22.¤d5!ќ is not better. Besides the text move, only 19...g6!? 20.Ґxf6 Јxb2 is relatively good.

20.Ґxf6 gxf6 21.¤c3 Јxb2

22.¤d5! Instead of capturing the queen. Black has three extra pawns and... extremely poor position.

22...ўf8. On 22...f5 White has nice-looking 23.Јxe5!? Јxc2 24.¤f6+ ўg7 25.¤h5+ ўh6 (25...ўf8 26.Јh8+ ўe7 27.Јxb8) 26.Јg7+ ўxh5 27.f4! h6 28.Јxf7+ ўh4 29.g3+! ўxg3 (29...ўxh3 30.Јh5+ ўxg3 31.¦f3#) 30.Јg6+ ўh4 31.Јxh6+ ўg3 32.Јg5+ ўxh3 33.¦f3# and simple 23.¦b1! Јa2 24.¤f6+ ўg7 25.¤d7ќ.

23.¤xf6. No need in 23.¦b1.

23...d3? Also bad is 23...ўg7? 24.Јxe5 Јxc2 25.¤d7+ ўg8 26.¤xb8ќ. Some hopes left 23...Ґd6! 24.¤d7+ (24.f4!?) 24...ўe7 (24...ўg7? 25.Јg4+ ўh8 26.Јf5) 25.¤xb8 (25.¤xe5 Јb5!) 25...Јxb8 26.¦b1!±.

24.Јxd3 e4 25.¤xh7+ ўg8 (25...ўg7 26.Јxe4ќ) 26.Јxe4. White attacks having an extra pawn.

26...Јg7 27.¦b1 c5 (27...Јc3 28.¤g5ќ)

28.Јf4! ¦d8 (28...¦b6 29.¦d1ќ) 29.¤f6+ ўf8 30.¦xb4! A simple final stroke in the excellent game. 1-0

After the first time control 'Ural' managed to even the score. Vladimir Akopian acted very reliably in the ending.

Akopian (2703) – Kasimdzhanov (2677)

43.e6! Just in time.

43...¦d4. Neither 43...fxe6 44.¦xe6 g5 45.fxg5 hxg5 46.¤e4 nor 43...¦d5 44.¤xf7 ¦xf4 45.¦c3! ¤e7 46.¦c7 ўf6 47.¤xh6 gives chances to Black. Only 43...¦xf4!? 44.e7 ¤xe7 45.¦xe7 left, but no doubt Akopian would realize an extra piece.

44.¤xf7 ¦xf4. If 44...¤e7 then 45.¤e5 – the pawn on f4 is defended indirectly (45...¦xf4 46.¤d3).

45.e7! An elegant tailpiece.

45...¤xe7 46.¤d8! Black resigned. 1-0

However, it was the last success of 'Ural'. Score being even, only one game left with practically decided outcome.

Karjakin (2686) – Grischuk (2717)  B90

1.e4 c5 2.¤f3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.¤xd4 ¤f6 5.¤c3 a6 6.Ґe3 ¤g4 7.Ґg5 h6 8.Ґh4 g5 9.Ґg3 Ґg7 10.h3 ¤e5 11.f3 ¤bc6 12.Ґf2 ¤g6 13.Јd2 Јa5 14.¤d5! Little investigated but very promising continuation.

14...Јxd2+ 15.ўxd2 Ґxd4. In case of 15...O-O!? 16.c3І White obtains a slightly better ending.

16.Ґxd4 ¤xd4 17.¤c7+ ўd7 18.¤xa8 ўc6. The white knight seems to be trapped but Black's king and the knight on d4 are in bad positions.

19.a4!N. White's rook enters the game through the a-file. 19.c3 ¤xf3+ 20.gxf3 Ґe6 21.a4 ¦xa8= is acceptable for Black, Badolati – Ibarra, corr. 2006.

19...Ґe6. If 19...Ґd7 and 20.a5! ¦xa8 21.¦a4! ¤e6 22.¦c4+ ¤c5 23.b4, and White has an extra exchange all the same.

22.b4+ ўxb4 (22...ўc4? 23.¦b3+) 23.¦xd4+ ўc5

24.¦d3. So White gained an exchange for a pawn, but winning is difficult.

24...¤e5 25.¦c3+ ¤c4+. In case of trying to save the knight by 25...Ґc4 26.Ґxc4 ¤xc4+ 27.ўd3 b5 very strong is 28.¦a1! seizing the side file.

26.Ґxc4 Ґxc4 27.h4. rooks need open files but 27.a5!? is interesting too.

27...d5?! This inconsiderate moving of the central point proved to be fatal. After 27...b5 28.axb5 axb5 29.hxg5 hxg5 30.¦h5 f6 31.f4 ўd4 Black has good chances to draw.

28.hxg5 hxg5 29.¦h5. More convincing is 29.exd5! ¦d8 30.¦e3.

29...d4? Makes the situation worse. Stronger is 29...dxe4 30.¦xg5+ (or 30.¦e3 exf3 31.gxf3 ¦d8+ 32.ўc3 f6) 30...ўb4 31.¦e3 exf3 32.gxf3 ¦d8+ 33.ўc1 ўxa4 34.¦xe7 b5 cutting down number of pawns significantly.

30.¦a3 f6 31.¦a1. Now White's chances to win are very high.

31...ўd6 32.¦ah1 a5?! If 32...b5 then 33.a5 fixing the pawn on a6, but the text move is also suspicious. Black should prefer more temporizing tactics.

33.¦b1! b5? Consistent but not good. On 33...Ґa6?! strong is 34.¦h7. Possibly, passive 33...¦b8 with the idea b7-b6 is more persistent.

34.axb5 a4 35.b6 a3 36.b7 ¦b8 37.¦hh1 ўc5 38.c3 dxc3+. A sympathetic zugzwang arises in the variation 38...d3 39.¦b4 a2 40.¦a1 e6 41.g4 e5 42.ўe3ќ.

39.ўxc3 Ґb5 40.¦a1 ¦xb7 41.¦xa3

This endgame is lost for Black yet Sergey Karjakin had to demonstrate his technique and coolness.

41...¦d7 42.ўc2 ўd6 43.ўd2 ўe6+ 44.ўe3 ўf7 45.¦c1 ¦b7 46.¦c5 Ґd7 47.¦a6 Ґb5 48.¦a5 Ґd7 49.e5 f5 50.ўd4 ¦b4+ 51.ўc3 ¦b7 52.g3 Ґe6 53.¦a3 f4 54.gxf4 gxf4 55.ўd3 ўg6 56.¦a8 ¦d7+ 57.ўe2 ¦d5?! Trading of rooks simplifies realization.

58.¦xd5 Ґxd5 59.¦f8 ўg5 60.¦e8 ўf5 61.¦xe7 Ґe6 62.ўd3 ўxe5 63.¦e8 ўd5 64.¦h8 Ґf7 65.¦f8 Ґg6+ 66.ўc3 ўe5 67.¦g8 Ґf5 68.¦g5 ўf6 69.¦h5 Ґc8 70.¦b5 Ґd7 71.¦a5 Ґc8 72.¦b5 Ґd7 73.¦c5 ўe6 74.ўd4 ўd6 75.¦a5 Ґc6 76.¦a6 ўd7

77.¦xc6! Here Alexander Grischuk resigned and Tomsk won the last and decisive match in the championship. 1-0

Of course, other events were shadowed by the struggle for the champion title. I should note an important victory by 'Shatar' (Buryatia) over 'Polytechnik' (Nizhny Tagil) which allowed to keep its place in Premier League for the next year. The following game from the match has finished among the last ones in the championship and is of interest for endgame theory.

Amonatov (2574) – Maletin (2541)

68.¦xd4!? Also wins 68.g6 Ґg7 69.¦c7 ¦g2 (70.¤g5 decides on any capture on f3) 70.¤g5 Ґh6 71.¦e7+! ўf2 72.¤e6 ¦h2 (72...ўxf3 73.¦h7) 73.¦h7 ¦h5+ 74.ўe4 etc.

68...ўxd4 69.ўxf4?! Clearly wins 69.g6! ¦g2 (69...¦xf3 70.g7 ¦g3 71.¤g5) 70.¤g5 ¦a2 71.g7 ¦a8 72.ўg6 ўe5 73.¤f7+ ўd4 (73...ўe6 74.¤h6) 74.ўh7 ўe3 75.¤g5ќ. Now winning becomes more difficult.

69...¦g1

70.ўf5? Now the game is drawn. On 70.¤e5 the only saving is 70...¦e1! 71.¤g4 ўd5 72.ўf5 ўd6 73.ўf6 (73.g6 ўe7) 73...¦e6+! 74.ўg7 ¦e7+ 75.ўh6 ўe6 76.g6 ўf5 77.g7 ¦e8 78.ўh7 ўf4 79.¤h2 ¦e2!=. Over the board, it is very difficult to discover 70.¤h6! ¦h1 (70...ўd5 71.ўf5! ўd6 72.ўf6 ¦f1 73.¤f5+ ўd7 74.g6!) 71.¤g4! (71.ўf5 ўe3!=) 71...ўd5 72.ўf5! ўd6 73.ўf6 ¦f1 (73...¦h3 74.¤e5! ¦h4 75.¤f7+ ўd5 76.ўf5! ¦h7 77.g6 ¦g7 78.f4ќ) 74.¤e5 ¦e1 75.f4 ¦e4 76.¤f7+ ўd7 77.f5ќ.

70...¦a1! Black is just in time.

71.f4. On 71.g6 saves only 71...ўe3! 72.¤e5 ¦g1 73.f4 ¦g2! (73...¦g3 74.¤g4+ ўf3 75.¤h2+ ўg2 76.ўf6 ўxh2 77.f5ќ) 74.¤g4+ ўf3=.

71...ўe3! To prevent interfering the g-file.

72.g6 ¦f1 73.g7 ¦xf4+ 74.ўg6 (74.ўg5 ¦f1! 75.¤e5 ¦g1+ 76.¤g4+ ўf3=) 74...¦g4+ 75.ўh7 Ѕ:Ѕ

It is the only draw in the whole review – and that is all.