#53
I showed a game where white had a space advantage but no firm grip over the center and lost.
Can you show a game won on space advantage alone?
#54
I quoted Capablanca verbatim. I presume a violent attack that succeeds = an attack that wins the game.
#55
I presented a game where white had a space advantage but no firm grip over the center and white lost because of that. So that game is a counterexample.
#51
The advice by the great thinkers Steinitz, Lasker, Capablanca, Nimzovich is to first seize the center and only then start the attack. If the center is shaky, then an attack is bound to fail as the opponent can counterstrike in the center.
Counterattacking is part and parcel of an attack, if you attack, you should also expect a counterattack unless you can consolidate a win from the onset. Attacking and counterattacking is all part of the bargaining and trading of advantages that stem from each position and the next subsequent position.
#61
Letelier was wrong in gaining space with e5.
By the way in your example game 12 Bxf6? cedes the bishop's pair without compensation. The later attack does not come from more space, but from an unopposed dark square bishop.
In the position that he played Bxf6, his Knight was just about as good as my Bishop, which was confined behind my d-Pawn.
White's mistake were more likely Qg3 (seriously compromising his own Bishop) and Rd4 (a tactical oversight, since he thought my Queen could be taken).
But short of time in such a complex position, it's hard to be too critical of tactical oversights.