The gloating isn't directed at Herr Nickel, of course. But at whichever poor sap 'discovered' it was a draw ten minutes before he resigned... and all the sharpies and steppies... we did it!

In no particular order, thanks to twinlark, RandomVisitor, monad, Thorsson, Rookfile, themadhair, Honza, YouRang, whiteshark, tomlinsky, jepflast, Artar1, GufeldStudent, Tabanus, mack, OpenDefence, everyone who hosted a forum, everyone who contributed analysis, and the rest of you too... it really was a team thing.

You played in impressive style, very accurately, and I suppose that a grandmaster could not have done better on your part. Once you managed to achieve a clear positional advantage, (probably after 14.f4!), you continued to maintain it (18.Qd2!) and subsequently to increase it. Black (that’s me) never achieved equality and failed in establishing real counterplay.. Finally, I got punished for a somewhat dubious looking set-up, characterized by the doubled pawns on d6/d5.

It’s still hard to say at exactly which point of the game Black was definitely lost. The position was difficult to play for both sides, and extremely difficult for the defending side (especially regarding the specific type of time control), but may be holdable with absolutely accurate play. As far as I have seen until now, I assume 27...Rac8? was a clear mistake. But I do not know your analysis yet, and I have to refine my own analysis, which was not as systematic as it ought to have been.

There is a bit of tragedy in this move 27...Rac8?, as I originally had planned the seemingly better move 27...Re4 (this was part of the plan with the double pawn d6/d5, started by the knight's tour Ne5-g4-d3-b4-d5), but when checking my analysis again, shortly before sending my move, I found it probably would only be a question of move order, as ...Rac8 often had to be played in the ...Re4-variations, and I could no longer stand seeing the poor rook in the corner with tears in his eyes. Of course, objectively speaking, I should have decided to take an extension (if not much earlier in the game!), but that would have allowed you too to analyze even deeper, and, as we are all human, this could have been interpreted as a sign of weakness.

- the possible strength of a World Team of amateurs (neither I nor anybody else really did expect that);

- the particular risks of this double-edged variation in correspondence chess (quite different from over-the-board chess, where inaccurate moves – from both sides - don’t get punished that consequently);

- the psychological situation of playing an unknown opponent, who is supposed to be an "underdog", though experience always tells you never to underestimate an "underdog" (it’s not possible to solve this conflict only by intention – you have to create some virtual mechanisms, that prevent you from analyzing superficially;

- the uncommon measure of replying to the opponent's move within 1 or 2 days (that's rapid correspondence chess compared to the standards of the ICCF, where you have 6 days and can accumulate time, that you didn't spend). Please, don’t get me wrong, I am far away from criticizing: the 1 or 2 days rule is completely acceptable for an exhibition match; though it's not easy to integrate it into your daily life for a longer period. (In a re-match, later this year, I think I will be able to manage this much better, as I will be prepared for it, with less simultaneous correspondence games and less publishing work to be done.)

Now, everybody, enjoy your victory! Long live the famous World Team of Chessgames.com! And many thanks to Daniel Freeman and the staff of Chessgames.com, who organized the event in a most professional and pleasant way.