"The Field of Accurate Asseements"

The most surprising thing about this hectic game is that I played it after a run of seven peaceful draws.

Obviously all my pent-up energy was expended in this one evening. Was the result of the game a fair one?

One rarely finds games, tournaments or matches where one can answer such a question in the affirmative without having to hesitate. In a game between players of equal strength the outcome always depends on a hundred minute factors whose existence we often do not even suspect.

All the critic (and I am speaking now as a critic) is capable of doing is to point out the final mistake which led to catastrophe. All the more so, as Black's mistake here is obvious: it was the move <31...Rxc1?>.

And had it not been that mistake, what guarantee is there that Black would not make another? Or White? Or Black again?

For example, White could have played, instead of <30.Bf5>, <30.Rxc8 Rxc8 31.Qd5 KxB 32.Qh5+!...<>>, but who can say with certainty what the most correct way of continuing the attack would be?

The moves <e5-e6-e7> were impudence, but impudence which came off: the position went outside the field of accurate assessments, and Keres does not like this; he has faith in his ability to calculate any number of variations, but there are often so many of them!