KEG: I agree with An Englishman that Marco's finish in this Bishop v. Knight ending was pretty, but to compare his play here to that of Capablanca is pushing the envelope.
Through move 55, the game was about even, and Marco had made little or no progress in the ending from move 33 to move 55.
But then Mason erred with 56. Nd3 (he should have played 56. Nf3) giving Marco the chance to play 56...d4 and grab a big advantage.
But Marco then did little with this advantage, and his repetition of moves would have given Mason a draw if today's rules were in force.
For 15 tedious moves from move 56 through move 71, Marco accomplished little or nothing.
But then Mason erred again with 72. Kf3 (instead of 72. Ke2) and suddenly Marco had a win in hand had he played 72...Kc6 (going for the b-pawn). Marco's 72...Bg4+, however, gave Mason new life.
But then Mason took his King on a losing march away from the area he needed to guard with 73. Kf4 (instead of the much better 73. Kf2).
The Tournament Book showers Marco with praise for his 73...Bd1, but in fact--while Marco's move was sufficient to win--73...Be2 would have been more accurate.
In any case, after Mason's very bad 74. Kf5 (74. Ne4 was probably hopeless but the last chance) Marco played 74...d3 and the game was soon over.
A pretty finish, yes. An ending in the league of Capablanca. Lasker, and Rubinstein, no.