It looks like a blitz game and in those instances I think that 'sacrifice for position' can sometimes lead to a time advantage & sometimes more, unless an opponent returns the compliment or simply outplays you. In the illustrated game I believe you deserved a win, given the c pawn advance idea. On move 39 the exchange of a big piece gives a won ending, also 46 Kh3 instead of f3 was the final straw.
My preference in terms of aggression is to build up by small advantages until a favourable combination or even a mate is available & this is my method with white often 'sacrificing a pawn in the opening for a positional' advantage which I try to eventually turn into material gain, eg Scotch gambit, Morra gambit. With black I use unbalanced setups for tactical opportunity eg Sicilian dragon with reliance on opening book theory.
Thank You.
John Boy
I mostly try to keep development pretty straight forward and watch my flanks. Sometimes you just get an idea in your head to go for it if you think you see an opportunity. Here I really think I pulled it off, up until the surprise ending where I lost! I think a great deal of sacrificing defense posture for an attacking mode of play depends on keeping momentum on your side. What do you look for in a chess game that signals to you that you should go on an agressive attack?