30. ... Rxc1!

Well, in this game I was playing a guy from my home town, who was one of those early-queen attackers.  I really hate that.  It's not my idea of good chess.

He had poked a bunch of holes in my pawn structure, but other than that he wasn't playing that much better than I was.  I was behind in material, and trying to simplify the position, but he resisted trades unless they were really pushed on him.  So he must have been surprised when I sacrificed a Rook for a Bishop.  To a guy who values material, this must have seemed like a blunder, but I've been reading Polgar's book of 5000+ chess problems, and one thing I've learned is that a bold sacrifice can turn the tide in a game.  So I gave him my Rook, and there was no stopping what hapened next.

I apologize for my otherwise poor play, but you have to admit the Rook sac was a good idea.

That was a good sac, that lead to your passed pawn being queened. and the queening squared forked the king and the rook

And he didn't have to lose the Rook.  I don't know why he moved that c pawn.  It was his Rook's only protection.

jefuchs> I was behind in material, and trying to simplify the position, but he resisted trades unless they were really pushed on him.

Generally, the side who's materially ahead should trade pieces and simplify, while the side who's behind should not. Eg, White could play 25.Bf4, developing his bishop, contesting the b-file, and welcoming a trade which improves White's pawn structure.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but I once read (I think Seirawan said it) that when you are behind, there's no danger in trading.  You're losing, and can be bold.  It gurantees nothing, but you have nothing to lose.