Adjudicator Bob Jones of Devon has selected an attacking game that David himself would have approved of, except that he would never have opened 1.e4 and, as a frequent exponent of the Centre Counter, would have been happier on the black side in the early going. Here is Bob's full judgment:

I played through the 1st one and liked it straight away, but had to see how the others matched up. Having played through them, I felt myself coming back to the 1st one to check it through in the context of having seen the others. How did it stand up?

• The winner (W) was faced with one of the less-common openings (The Scandinavian Opening or Centre Counter Game with the Marshall Gambit version to follow, It has a centuries-old history behind it and many "old-timers" have recommended and played it over the centuries, but it's still not not often seen these days.). This meant that Black may well have known the opening better in order to have played it, so White had to be careful.
• The game is opened up right from the start, with threats met by counter-threats etc.
• They castle on opposite wings, which always guarantees a lively attacking game, as they vie to get their telling blows in early.
• If one threat is countered, they switch the point of attack quickly.
• White sacrifices the exchange mid-game for no clear immediate advantage, but of long-term value.
• Both players succeed in getting blows in against the opposing king during the game, But although White has few pieces in close support to his king compared to Black, it is the latter's defences that crumble to a nice finesse. i.e. After the Black king is forced out, a White pawn checks it, while simultaneously exposing the black-square bishop to attack the helpless queen. End of game.
• Played with great vigour throughout by both players, but ultimately decided with a short, sharp attack. I'm sure other folk would have picked otherwise, but this was the one I liked instinctively.

Congratulations to the winner, and thanks to the other 4 for their efforts.