i dont understand why Rattman resigned, sure he loses a queen but the diffrence between them is not that big

Nice traps. Might as well prepare for them both ways: for my use or for my opponent's use.

:-)

good article :)

These traps setup the BIG 1-2-3 K.O. punch!!!

ADK

After being offered a bishop, of course you look to see why, and in this case, i'm not it matters why - but anticipating that offer is another story altogether.
I think Black is just as totally lost after Qa4 as after QxB, just in a different manner.  QxB just leads to a slight, but significant enough (i.e. losing) material deficit (25-27) while Qa4 leads to a ruined position after Qf3 forks f7 and b7, followed by Nc3 joining in the attack with force. Which is why I think the rather oblique 10. Bg5 is the remarkable move and the least obvious.  Of course, I'm an expert on neither positional chess nor tactical chess, so my opinion could be way off (but I've never let such minor details hamper my voicing it).

yeah, but when somebody offers up the bishop like that you have to take a hard look :) after Qa4 then Qf3 and black is still in trouble, but not totally lost.

Well, 10. Bg5 was (in my opinion) the surprise move and it wasn't all that obvious.  Years ago Gary Lane, then of Chess Life, wrote that, contrary to what most people seem to think,  generally speaking, the quality of correspondence games (on the master level) was no better than that of OTB games (on the master level) and tactics are rather personal (I said that) insofar as different people see (or don't see) different tactical possibilities.

how did Rattman miss that in a correspondence game???