middle game

Found this- thought it might be of interest to those of us concerned with the middle game. I think that is where we often fall down. If we, as members want to improve- it is to the middle and end game that I for one need to improve.

 The opening has culminated in this position almost by force.  How should it be evaluated?  The pawn-structure is symmetrical, with the isolated queenside pawns of both colours constituting a key factor.  Who is usually able to profit from such mutual weaknesses?  In the most general sense, the answer is simple and natural: the presence of weaknesses on both sides can be more effectively exploited by the side that is more active.  This very formula points to the connection between static and dynamic elements of the position, and tells us clearly that these elements should always be considered as a whole.  A practical conclusion follows.  White’s advantage consists of two elements: the insecure placing of the black knight (a temporary factor, under the heading of dynamics) and the potential superiority of bishop over knight in certain endgame situations (this is to some extent a long-term factor; it falls to some extent within statics).  In order not to forfeit this advantage, White must act vigorously.  A simple developing move like 23. Rad1 would not be energetic enough here; after 23…Qa5! the game would level out.  Kasparov, who without any doubt has studied this position at home plays with extreme precision…

Douggie you are on point. Thanks. I will look more at my middle and end game more. In the middle gm is where i sometimes have trouble.