The reason I feel that Karpov's strategic mastery is slightly above that of Petrosian, Capablanca, Kasparov and Lasker, is the fact that Karpov dominated a much stronger field of competitors or super grandmasters. Then there is the fact that Karpov's games are so scientifically (-positionally-strategically) slanted, that one fails to notice what is going on. His feel for high strategy and microscopic manoeuvres is superior to that of any other in my opinion. Karpov asserts this but adds that Petrosian may have been the only GM that could match him (Karpov) in this scientific (ultra-positional) approach.

<And I have been successful since you have responded.>

It is this paralysing or strangulating effect that Karpov exercises with perfect mastery game after game, that I am "singing hymns" about. And I thus sought opinion on the game and Karpov's style. And when I made the great claim, I did so with awareness that it is my opinion only and many others may feel differently hence my very relaxed attitude regarding soliciting opinion.

And yes...you might say that I do not really care about the answer because there could never be an answer or "truth" where people's opinions are concerned. But I still enjoy to know what another might think. I might even be swayed by another's view.

Think the question is after 34. Qc5 are whites passed pawns a threat or just targets.

I'm guessing that both players evaluated them as more targets. Thus making Gulko's "attack" maybe more trying to mix things up in semi-desperation than anything tangible.

Yeah, does appear so. Probably focuses Black on those passed pawns much more than any King directed counter play.

My first inclination is maybe 34...Qb7 where I think white doesn't want to exchange queens but then has to come up with some move. Eventually queens come off and looks like one of the pawns will fall and maybe the other blockaded pretty good but Black will probably have to make some concession somewhere as the remaining outside passed pawn is always going to give white opportunities. But opportunities to win?

Maybe that's why Gulko went different? Maybe thought his rook plan was winning and just missed the mating threat? Maybe thought both pawns would eventually be dropped and figured 4 versus 2 endgame was lost?

Firstly, there is Karpov's intriguing pawn sacrifice offer on move 16 mentioned by others. There's some compensation, but it seems to be very subtle, and perhaps not enough. Gulko probably should have called Karpov's bluff.

Next it is Gulko's turn to offer a positional sacrifice, and this one is clearly excellent (27 Rd6!). Acceptance of the exchange sacrifice would result in white having two sweeping bishops supporting two far advanced passed pawn. Echoes of Petrosian. Karpov wisely declined.

But Gulko's queenside pawns are strong, not targets as some have suggested. He's better. But he "misses the moment" when Karpov attacks his 'b" pawn with 33...Nc6. Gulko passively defends it with 34 Qc5?. A tactical defence was available in the form of 34 c5! and Karpov cannot take on b4 due to a discovered attack (Nd6). In the meantime, White has progressed his pawns and improved the scope of his bishop. My engine assesses this as +1.6.

Karpov then initiates a spectacular tactical defence, finding 35...Qb8! with threats against h2, which Gulko misses, likely in time trouble, allowing the strike 36...Rd2!

Still, it seems Gulko might counter tactically himself with his own desperado (38 Rxe6) only to be upended by the lovely counter 38...Nf3+! which nudges Gulko's queen away from Karpov's rook, winning the exchange.