The technical refinement of positional play, coupled with a restricted opening repetoire with relatively few critical lines, was supposed to categorise the master play of the period. I do not believe that this is true; many of the games in this period were enegetic. This is such a game.

John plays <g4> in a Spanish to initiate K-side expansion, and Marco sacrifces a knight to capture that pawn, opening up John's K to a dangerous, but in the end a speculative, attack. Both players ignore drawing lines in the effort to win.

<12....Nxg4>, is Marco's all or nothing alternative to 12...Bg6

<15.Rh1> seizing the h file, may have been more flexible than congesting his position by bringing the N to e2 intending Ng3.

Trying to gain control of the dark squares on the K-side does not appear to work either:

<18.Qe1> f4 19.Bf2 Rf6 20.Bd5 (20.Kh2? Rh6) 20...Rg6+ 21.Kh2 Bxf3 22.Nxf3 Rh6+ 23.Kg1 Qh3

<20.Nf2> does not work against the threat of <g4>: 20.Nf2 g4 21.Nc3 gxf3+ 22.Kh2 Bh4

<23...Bf7> 24.Bc3+ Ne5 25.Bxf7 is equal

<24.Ng6+> Kg7 25.Nxe7 Qxe7 26.Bh6+ Kh8 27.Bxf8 Rxf8 28.Qd2 =

<24...Bf6?> should lose (<24...Ne6>=) to 25.Ng6+ Kg7

<26.Qd2?> what did John see? Why not <26.Nxf8> Rxf8, followed by 27.Qd2? Now it is all downhill for him after <26...Bh3+>

Marco easily avoids <27...Kxg6?> 28.Rag1+ Kh5 29.Bxf6

Unfortunately, ...Bh3+ removes the mate threat, picks up a tempo, and the knight falls.

This is an example of the importance of always doing a routine scan of all checks and captures on every candidate move BEFORE playing the move.