Gypsy: This is what <D. Bronstein> has to say about the game in <200 Open Games>:
"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!
And where, in which department of the brain, can the ones that have already been calculated be kept?