Correct. Now 66.Kc2?? would lose to 66...Ke4 and 66.Ke2?? to 66...Kc4.

No: this isn't the 'Opposition', and Black now obtains it. White would have maintained the Opposition by 69.Kd2. Not that it matters a lot; the game's still drawn. Sooner or later Black will have to advance the pawn - he can not force an improvement in the relative positions of the Kings. Really this position is quite forgiving to the defender..

This move is essential; 75.Kc1 or 75.Ke1 would have lost. E.g. 75.Kc1 Kc3 76.Kd1 d2 77.Ke2 Kc2 and the pawn safely promotes, for an elementary K/Q vs K ending.

i know i should not feel happy about this but im the second person to get a draw against white on GK !!!!

I do not mean that stronger players (like Freddy for example) can't make aggressive but unclear or unsound attacks against much lower rated players. But the reverse in a much lower attacking the higher rated player hoping for a mistake is not usually good. For purposes of beginners, to whom these comments are directed, they should concentrate on general principles.

My experience and observation has been that the strong opponents will play conservative and good chess, confident in outplaying the weaker opponent somewhere down the line. The problem with playing for complications is that it is likely to bring about the best in the weaker opponent, whose relative weakness is more likely anyhow to be strategic rather than tactical. In any case the higher you go the more the rating differences have to do with consistency.

The game is instructive, and I think it is a good game. One thing I find totally ridiculous however, is the 3rd sentence. If you watch any masters play against weaker players aroun 1800/1900(usually in the first round of a open section) many of them win quickly by making an incorrect attack. Attacking is easier than defending, and even an incorrect attack is good, as long as the player attacking does it well. Who wants to spend hours grinding out "safe" advanatages against weaker players? No one does. Also, we should keep in mind activity is the ONLY factor in chess. Edit-Let me clarify myself a bit, since I have wrote too quickly. When I mean attack, I also mean plan. Planning and attacking are the same things. Doesn't necessarily have to be an attack against a king, or tactical operations. The idea is-when you make a plan and do it while the opponent does not, your position is almost automatically winning. Planning, which involves positional understanding is very hard. If the opponent has a weak pawn, then plan against it.

There is a distinction between an attack and a plan. An attack is a commitment of forces against a target. You can have a plan of applying pressure to a target without committing to the target. Usually a position with one weakness can be defended. A position with two weakness is often fatal. When playing against two weakness your plan is often applying pressure and maneuvering against the two weakness. You would not necessary attack (commit your forces) immediately as part of the plan. This really is more of a question of semantics than substance, but it is helpful if we all speak the same language.