"I'm not a postionally-oriented player, but looking that this game, I'm not convinced white was necessarily positionally superior.  All I see is the white had initiated a pawn storm of sorts, gaining space especially on the Kingside (where he ended up losing) at the risk of King safety and in some cases depriving his own pieces of mobility. His White Bishop had been bad most of the game (though this wasn't a permanent affliction), his Black Bishop only slightly better and his Knight en pris through a good many moves while his Rooks remained unconnected.  I just don't see any postitional advantage in all this.  But Black had a nice win nonetheless."

Of course you have to look at a position in different ways. You could argue white's pawn chain could be undermined but in this position as in many white can hold his center and cramp black and eventually play e5 (but it has to be well prepared) breaking through while black's ...b5 advance is often very difficult to arrange and is less imposing than white's pawns anyways. Once the pawns are backed up, white secures the edge. In the main line benoni lines though, white has to be careful not to push too quickly. But in the game it was well maintained. Sure his pieces weren't especially active, but neither were white's and in closed games you develop your forces behind the pawns and eventually the center will be opened up with e5 which of course is in white's favor because he has more space there and his pieces are aiming there. At the moment they are blocked by pawns, but this way the squares are backed up and when the center opens his pieces can jump to life. White just had to be more careful with the tactics that could blow his center and king away.

For a self-described "B" player that was a pretty good combination.  Great to see the regular posts, Loomis.

Unforeseen tactics sometimes surfaces unexpectedly.

great job.  I really like the sac.  One of the problems with his play was that even though he had a great position, the tactics didn't favor him.  A great position only works if there aren't any tactical holes like the one you cleverly spotted.

24. Re3 Qxf4+ followed by Bxe3 still claims the rook, leaving black up an exchange.

I believe that white went from a better position to worse in the span of two moves 21. Bf1 and 22. g4. If white is allowed to play e5, he will be better. But he failed to follow that plan. 22. Be3 would have left white ok as well. After 22. g4, white doesn't play accurately (24. Bg2 is not the most testing and 27. Be3 is bad), but is already playing from behind at that point.

Wouldn't 24.Re3 be quite good for white? And I do have the feeling that white threw it away somewhere earlier, although I must admit I don't see anything concrete yet.

I'm not a postionally-oriented player, but looking that this game, I'm not convinced white was necessarily positionally superior.  All I see is the white had initiated a pawn storm of sorts, gaining space especially on the Kingside (where he ended up losing) at the risk of King safety and in some cases depriving his own pieces of mobility. His White Bishop had been bad most of the game (though this wasn't a permanent affliction), his Black Bishop only slightly better and his Knight en pris through a good many moves while his Rooks remained unconnected.  I just don't see any postitional advantage in all this.  But Black had a nice win nonetheless.

I'm usually on the other side of the table, (seems like I have said that before somewhere...) I lose to silly tactics with a superior position. :(, well, most of them are silly... but then again. I have had the experience of climbing from a bad position to a win as well, but I always feel dirty afterwards, as if I didn't do the right thing in resigning when I should have. of course, if I have a trophy in hand I feel less dirty :)

White played really bad during the latest 5-7 moves.

nice game