Should White go for the position with two conncted central pawns and Rook fortwo minor pieces?20.Nxc5...Alternatively20.Nxb6Rxb621.e5dxe5would lead to a pretty balanced position.20....dxc521.Bxb8...Thisappears to be a wrong move.White should have played21.e5choosingthe position with piece down for one pawn, instead of having Rook and twocentral pawns for two minor pieces! White's two central pawns supported by theBishop pair and White's heavy pieces are very dangerous, while Black's minorpieces lack coordination. One example line is:Nd722.Bg2anotherdifficult decision. Now 23.e6 is a big threat.(22.e6fxe623.Bxb8(23.dxe6is refuted by a tactical trickNe5)e5both the White Bishops are under attack and the gameis very unclear.)Nd6(22...Qc723.e6Nd624.exd7Qxd725.Rxc5Rxb226.Qd3and White is better thanks to his strong d5-pawn.)23.e621....Qxb822.Rxc5Nd6Formally, White has a material advantage having twopawns and Rook for Black's two minor pieces (7 pawns vs 6 pawns if wecalculate pawn value). However, in many cases, we need to evaluate dynamicfactors. For example in this position, White's connected central pawns cannotadvance, while Black's minor pieces are getting active very rapidly. In manycases, the simple pawn value might be misleading in evaluation of our specificimbalanced positions. It's more about piece activity and coordination, or howdangerous are the pawn/pawns.23.Rec1...After this natural move, Black istaking over and never looks back.The only move maintaining the balancewould be23.Qb4although I would still prefer Black's position afterNb523....Nd724.R5c2Qb3Inaccurate execution.Better would have been24...Re8with an advantage.25.Bg2Ne526.Rc3Qb627.Qe2...Missing another opportunity to come back into the game.White can play27.Qe3Qb7(27...Qxb228.Rb3Qa229.Ra3)28.Rb3Qe729.h3following upwith 30.f4.27....a527...Nb528.Qe3Qb8was even stronger.