I was in the lead with 2.5/3 going into this round. Before the game started, I learned that my last round opponent had withdrawn from the tournament that morning, effectively giving me (and my nearest contender, Jack Yoos, who had 2/3) a full-point last round bye. I tried not to let this knowledge affect my play, but I did contemplate offering a draw (around the time I made my speculative 17th move) to ensure a share of first, but I changed my mind and instead played the move silently. In retrospect, I believe this decision to have been fortuitous, as a draw offer might well have been perceived as psychological weakness, and may have inspired Gardner to look harder for the variation that I was afraid of. As it went, I think the (naive) outward confidence with which I played the move, combined with Gardner’s looming time trouble, was enough to swing the psychological balance in my favour. I was expecting Gardner to play the Dutch Defence, and had decided to try an ‘offbeat’ but dangerous attacking line to pose concrete problems right out of the opening. The Leningrad Dutch Defence was in my own Black repertoire for several years, and I remember the lines I often felt uncomfortable playing against were the ‘irregular’ ones, such as
1.d4 f5 2.g4!?
1.d4 f5 2.h3!?
1.d4 f5 2.e4
1.d4 f5 2.Bg5
1.d4 f5 2.c4 g6 3.h4!?

and others of that ilk. I think the opening choice worked well, as Gardner spent a lot of time in the opening, and his subsequent time pressure was probably an instrumental factor in enabling my faulty combination to succeed.
1. d4 f5 2. Nc3 d5 3. e4!?
The move that Black’s second was intended to prevent, and the perfect line to get my opponent out of his comfort zone.
3… dxe4
Several years ago I caught an opponent unprepared for this line, and he responded by quickly centralizing his knight as follows: 3… Nf6 4. e5 Ne4 5. Nce2 I was pleased with this move at the time, and I thought it was a clever way to trap the e4 knight, who suddenly lacks escapes squares. The game continued 5… e6 threatening to escape via g5 6. h4 Be7 7. g3 c5 8. f3. Here Black does in a fact have some compensation the piece because the time spent and the structural concessions that I’ve made to win the knight have reduced my piece coordination. But, my opponent, probably psychologically demoralized for having lost apiece so quickly and unexpectedly, failed to put up much resistance. If Black just continues with 8… Nc6 9. fxe4 fxe4 10. c3 O-O 11. Nh3 the position is better for White, but there remain problems to be solved. 3… fxe4?! 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Qxd5+/- is a position I had in an email game.
4. Bf4
The immediate 4. f3 is considered less accurate, because after the central counter 4… e5 Black has at least equality. 4… e6 Black prepares to challenge the bishop’s active post with …Bd6. I wasn’t overly impressed with this move, and the subsequent positions Black has to put up with. In this position Black has tried stuff like 4… Nf6 5.f3 and allowed White to trade pawns on e4. The pawn structure is messy, but at least Black gets his pieces out more easily.
5. f3 exf3?!
I think this exchange makes things easier for White. I think he should play 5… Nf6 and after 6. fxe4 fxe4 the pawn on e4 hampers White’s development a little by controlling the f3 and d3 squares, and Black can think about moves like …Bb4 or …Bd6 and …Nc6 with fully equal chances in an interesting position.(But not the knight capture: 6… Nxe4? 7. Nxe4 fxe4 8. Qh5+ g6 9. Qe5 Rg8 10. Qxe4+/-)
6. Nxf3
Now White has easy development, and Black has a permanent positional weakness - a backwards pawn on a semi-open file.
6… Bd6 7. Ne5
The knight occupies the natural outpost on e5. Of course, I would be happy for Black to trade it off for his dark-squared bishop and be left with only the remaining bad bishop at c8.
7… Nf6 8. Bc4 c6
Black shores up his defence of d5 with the intent of placing the knight there to neutralize the c4 bishop and its uncomfortable pressure on e6. It also allows for the possibility of the queen developing to b6.
9. O-O O-O 10. Qd3
I spent a little time weighing the relative merits of various other queen placements, such as d2, f3, e2, or e1, in addition to prophylatic moves like Kh1, a4 or Bb3. How to choose between these moves? White’s lead in development suggests that it is ideal to bring the last piece into play (i.e. via Rae1) and thus the three prophylactic choices are too slow (and unnecessary - why prevent the structurally weakening …b5?). Additionally, I felt it useful that d4 pawn remain protected to reduce annoyance from a potential …Qb6. Of the two remaining queen moves, Qd3 also protects the central square e4, and threatens, in passing, Qxf5.
10… Nd5 11. Rae1!
My opponent revealed after the game that he hadn’t expected this move. Optically, the move is obvious, as it is the logical conclusion to the developmental scheme outlined in the last note. However, it takes some thought to part with the bishop on f4, as this trade implies the loss of the two bishops, and potential loss of dark square control. In addition, this bishop prevents the developing …Nbd7 (due to Nxc6). But look at the payoff: the c4 bishop gains in strength, the pressure on the e6 pawn weakness is renewed, and Black trades his only well-placed piece!
11… b5 12. Bxd5?!
Honestly, my candidate move list here consisted of only 12.Bb3 and the text. I didn’t realize that 12. Nxd5! was playable, missing the idea that after 12… bxc4 (12… exd5 13. Bb3) 13. Nxc4 attacks the d6-bishop twice, thus avoiding losing a piece, and maintaining a superior position. After the text White is still better, but the magnitude of the advantage is diminished. 13… cxd5 14. Nxd6 Ba6 15. Qe3+/-
12… exd5 13. Ne2!
Manoeuvring the knight to the far more useful square on d3.
13… a5 14. Qf3
Squares g3 and h3 were also locations I considered, but on f3 the queen attacks d5 and sets up tactical possibilities, such as Nxc6.
14… Qc7 15. Nc1 b4
Black gains some space on the queenside and prepares to activate his bishop via a6.
16. Ncd3 Ba6 17. Nxc6?!
In the game, this combination worked beautifully. However, it is based on an oversight! I should have played something more patient like Qh3 or Qh5 intending a rook lift with Rf1-f3.
17… Qxc6
Not 17… Nxc6? 18. Qxd5+ Qf7 19. Qxd6+/-
18. Re6 Bxd3?
18… Qxc2! I overlooked this rather obvious move in my original analysis of 17 Nxc6. In retrospect, this oversight was probably a good thing, as I could easily have burned up the majority of my remaining time trying to calculate the consequences . I think with best play by both sides the play is complex, but equal: 19. Rxd6 (19. Bxd6? Qxd3 20. Qxd3 Bxd3 21. Rd1 Be4 22. Bxf8 Kxf8 23. Rc1 Nd7 24. Rc7 Nf6 25. Ree7 Ne8 26. Rb7-/+) 19… Bxd3 (19… Bc4 20. Ne5 Qe4 (20… Bxa2 21. Qe3! (21. Rxd5 Ra7!) 21… Ra7! (21… Qxb2?? 22. Nd3 Qc2 23. Qe6+ Kh8 24. Be5+-) (21… Qe4 22. Qf2! Threatening Re1 trapping the queen. 22… Bb3 23. Re1 Qc2 24. Qh4+- Ra6 25. Rxa6 Nxa6 26. Nd7!) (21… Re8 22. Rc1 Qxb2 (22… Qe4 23. Qd2! again threatens to trap the queen) 23. Re6!+-) (21… a4 22. Rb6+/=) 22. Rc1 Qe4 23. Qd2 Bb3 24. Nd3 Bc4 25. Nc5 Qe2 26. b3 Qxd2 27. Bxd2 Be2 28. Rxd5=) 21. Nxc4 dxc4 22. Qxe4 fxe4 and White’s activity compensates for the pawn deficit.) 20. Qxd5+ Kh8 21. Rc1 Qxb2 22. Bh6! gxh6[] 23. Qe5+ Kg8 24. Qg3+ Kh8 (24… Kf7?? 25. Rc7+) 25. Qe5+=
19. cxd3
White has a winning advantage in all variations.
19… Rd8 20. Bxd6 g6
20… Rxd6 21. Qxf5 and White forces mate. The longest variation is nine moves: 21… h5 22. Qf7+ Kh7 23. Qxh5+ Kg8 24. Re8+ Qxe8 25. Qxe8+ Kh7 26. Rf8 Kh6 27. Rh8+ Kg5 28. Qh5+ Kf4 29. Qe5+ Kg4 30. h3#
21. Rfe1 Rxd6
21… Nd7 22. Qh3+-
22. Re8+ Kg7 23. R1e7+ Kf6 24. Qf4 h6 25. Qxh6 Black resigns. 1-0
Here I missed a checkmate in two moves starting with Qh4+. This is ironic, because I always make my students work on mate in two problems for homework. I think this move is explained by the fact that the position is already winning, so it is more practical do just play a win when one sees it. But better behavior is to take a bit of extra time, especially in an important tournament situation as this was, and make sure that my move filter was screening the most accurate moves possible. If I can manage to consistently adhere to this sort of behavior in the future, it should manifest itself in an overall improvement in strength, and I’ll be able to convert more wins in those positions where I occasionally drop half points to sloppy technique.