A very nice game. Good use of promotion tactics at the end. However, as a response to one of your annotations...
With two pawns down, I had no chance of winning; I should have resigned. But as the game went on, I learnt that my opponent was passive in his play. His keeping his bishops inactive, his move 27.. h6? , unwillingness to push e4 or improve his position by sac'ing one of his extra pawn; they all indicated that he does not intend to counterplay.
That gave me enough confidence to sac my knight. My conscience(EDIT: Typo conscious) rightly told me that he would want to hold on to this extra piece and hope my attack would die out.
Apart from strategy and tactics, being able to understand how the opponent thinks is also an important aspect in winning a game. I learnt that lesson very well today.
Lol! I just pity my opponent. I wonder how upset he would be right now.
I do not study opening theory and survive because of middle game play.
Here, in this game, I lost a pawn because of miscalculation. Then another pawn down. I won because, luckily, my defence was better than my opponent's attack. This was my best successful defence.
Let me know what you think of this game. Any comments about this game, criticism, analysis etc are welcome.