(1) Will we now (or in the next few moves) find it difficult - psychologically - to play h4, even if the engines and attack-minded humans like it? Simply because playing h2-h3-h4 feels wrong?

(2) Assume GMAN makes one of his 'normal' moves, and the plan calls for 29.Kh2. My guess is a lot of people just won't buy this: it's a lot harder to accept than a utility move like h3. So 29.fxg6 could come back into the reckoning by default. Or 29.Qd3, though it can be shown to be weak.

As far as I can see, the standard arguments against fxg6 still apply - no need to dissolve tension, too soon to know if f6 or fxg6 is needed, useful meanwhile to have both threats. But 28.fxg6 had a solid following, and it'll grow bigger next move.

Another problem may be 29. R1f2, which I like very much in case of Bg7 or Qb5 at least. I would usually follow that up with Kh2, so we need to see if it transposes from 29. Kh2. If it doesn't, it may split the camp.

At some point we have to do something on the f file. However, I think it is possible that a move with the b pawn may still be in order.

Then black played ...Re1 anyway. Was there a difference? Hard to say. But a few moves later, black got his queen onto our 1st rank as well - and white played the 'prophylactic' Kg3, before he could be forced there by ...Rh1+

There are frequently positions in which natural and good looking moves appear and everyone would agree that they should be played after a quick look at the board. Just like Nd4 on move 18 or 19 - centralizing the knight and threatening to exchange it against the bishop and then when we finally played it Nc6: looked like the move of choice. Now we had to fight against Qd3.

All those moves have several things in common:
1. They look like sensible moves which seem to taken directly out of a beginner's book saying you should always strive to put your pieces on better squares. 2. They appear to aggressive and to threaten something. Either exchanging a knight for a bishop or attacking a lonesome (poisoned) pawn. Keyword: Initiative (you can read in every beginner's book that it's useful to have the initiative) 3. They don't lose. You can't easily refute them or at least not from a tactical point of view. They don't drop a piece or allow mate in 2 so they just can't be bad, can they? 4. Their goals are easy to understand (better placement of our pieces, attacking a weak pawn) so that everyone, really everyone can understand their purpose. 5. They give away our advantage and what could be more in GMAN's interest than that?

There were many lines posted regarding h3, and all looked good for White. There were few areas we felt Black could surprise us, and that has to always be a consideration. The Rybka lines all rated h3 as one of the 2 strongest moves, along with b4. b4 was considered more speculative, and with many more variations.

Ehhh, yes.

Cool, this is just like watching "Days of our Lives"!

Next thing we know, DomDaniel will turn out to be possessed by a succubus and his sinister plan to undermine the World's efforts against GMAN will be revealed.

Meanwhile, the endless debate of whether Kasparov or Fischer was the greater player will continue, with more reinforcement sock puppet accounts being called into action (by both sides!)