I have played in GM Christine's games before, so I knew she would do a great job and she did not disappoint. Thank you, Christine!
Congratulations to Dan on winning the game and the tournament!
Going into the game, my attitude was to play the game and ignore the tournament. However, in short order it became clear that others did not feel the same way (allegedly). Most of the other players, notably England and Italy, seemed to have at least an inkling that Tim should be thrown under the bus as he was the tournament leader. 
While an EG was slightly less enticing than an FG, when Derek came on board, two things became clear to me: 1) that I could, potentially, play an IG in the west and an AG in the east, and 2) that it was better to have all the angst pointed anywhere else than me. 
However, the odds of me getting into Bur were low. In fact, I didn't really think I would get it. I was satisfied to play a bit neutrally in 1901. So, I asked Tim if he wanted to bounce in Bur or dmz it. He told me he doesn't like dmz's and we sort of just agreed to not go there. Well, knowing that Italy was opening west and believing England was as well, this seemed an ideal situation.
In retrospect, I should have noticed one problem immediately. Mike was not much of a writer. That's not a good thing.
For me, the game went south in spring 1902. I'd built F Kie instead of F Berlin because I didn't want to broadcast my intention to go after Russia. Shortly before the deadline, mostly because Mike had been silent, I had the overwhelming urge to support A Hol. I did not do it and Mike blew up my army. That was some commitment to going after France—it lasted all of one turn (the fall move to Bel was not anti-French). 
Meanwhile, Andrew and I were getting along very well. We seemed to be on the same page and things were, for the most part, going as planned. However, when we had Warsaw and Moscow, Derek had begun his assault on Austria. This distracted Andrew and Will's refusal to join us led to some nearly inexplicable ill-will from Andrew toward Will. I will say that Turkey played a very puzzling game. 
Actually, if I could summarize how Russia won, it would be this: this was a game in which England and Turkey were largely absent, Germany and France took turns belting each other, Italy left Turkey alone and wiped Austria out, and Russia's only "enemies" (AG) were too weakened by others to take him out. Plus, Dan showed great resilience. I don't know many players who could lose War/Mos and basically be cut in two, then go onto win the game. Frankly, I think Will and Mike bear the brunt of the blame, but the rest of us contributed, particularly Derek.
Derek will surely object. He will note that he was playing his game and others conspired to give the game to Dan. While that is superficially true, Derek could and should have worked out a deal with Tim. They had an easy path to a 3-way draw, one in which Derek might likely have come out on top. Instead, Derek insisted on banging his head against the wall. While I can't take credit for much in this game, I did delight in Tim's move that destroyed F Spain. Why? Well, because I suggested it. I knew it would work because Derek was thinking too much in a "straight line." 
A word about each player:
Austria: Andrew played well, communicated well, but probably should have chosen a different path than the kamikaze vs. Turkey. It could not work with no fleets.
England: Mike started well, but either lost interest or could not maintain focus. His Spring 1902 attack on Holland was not a good move for him. If you take that kind of cheap attack, you'll never maintain an alliance that has any value. Nmr'ing is bad. Abandoning a game without explanation is worse, far worse.
France: Tim played an excellent game. The imbalanced defense he employed is perfectly legitimate. The entire idea is to put pressure on the other player (In this case, Italy) to turn around before the player you're not defending against wins. Derek didn't get it and therefore the game was lost. I thought Tim erred in stabbing me for two dots. I think if he'd have stuck with me then, we might well have rolled the board—and he always would have had the upper hand. He thought I should have switched back to him sooner, but it was a case of once bitten, twice shy. I could not begin working with him until I was sure stabbing me again was not in his best interests.
Italy: Derek played an okay game. I am not sure he gets the game as well as Dan and Tim do. The game is about people and communication above dots and position. When I was working with Dan and Derek, I would frequently get one-sentence emails from Derek at the last minute. When you are trying to win a game, you need to do better than that. I agreed with Tim that Dan should win because he ultimately worked to win the game.
Russia: I think I've said most of what I can say. Great game! You deserve the win and the WB win. Not many players would hang in there and do what you did.
Turkey: see my comments re: England. Additionally, failing to capitalize on opportunities like you had in this game is mystifying. You could and should have topped the board. Think about this: Italy never came after you! How many games does that happen in?
I don't normally play on this site, but this was a good experience. I do think the game was totally twisted by the disappearance of two players and that is unfortunate, but total credit to Dan for the win.




Best regards,



Steve