Earlier he had missed 35. Rb6, and if 35....Qxg4 then 36. Rc6+ forces the losing ...Kd8, since any other king move loses the queen to a discovered check. But 35. Rf6 was not bad; 35....Qc7 allowed the obvious 36. Bxe5, which neither Showalter nor Hoffer in the tournament book noticed (I suspect Hoffer did not spend much time annotating this game).

From my perspective, the opening play on both sides was wretched. Tinsley was still in the game after the opening, but only because Showalter's play was nearly as bizarre and misguided as Tinsley's.

It was only with 18...h6 and 19...c4 by Tinsley that the game became interesting. At least he had an idea, even though it cost him a pawn, that gave him counterplay rather than his usual role of punching-bag in this tournament. Starting here, as keypusher notes, the game does indeed become an fascinating struggle.

But, after making a good fight of the game for about 10 to 15 moves, Tinsley blundered with 32...Qxa4. After Showalter's clever 33. b3 and Tinsley's follow-up blunder of 33...Qd7 (33...Qa5 was his only real chance), Showalter seemingly had an easy win.

As keypusher has pointed out, 35. Rb6 by Showalter would have sounded the death knell for Tinsley. Showalter's 35. Rf6 should probably also been sufficient to win, but Tinsley still had life.

Showalter missed 38. Qb2, but his 38. Rf1 still left him with a won game.

But Showalter then blundered away the game with 41. Qf2???

If there is a moral here it is that when you allow your opponent to survive time and again, you may actually win up losing a clearly won position.