My dear Lobogal:

Your analysis of the Duckwalk Tease is astute and my omission duly noted, however there is a point you fail to consider, all the more surprising given the perceptive player you are. BTW, Lord Dinglehoff is actually my great-great-great-great uncle on my mother’s side before the family got irrevocably tangled up with a bunch of nasty Scotsmen, and his alcoholism (family diary) stemmed not originally from his infamous Duckwalk Stumble but rather his inability to lose while intoxicated or win sober. Scotch on the Rocks and Brandy were ever keys to success but having promised his beloved (future third) mistress that he would curtail his habit if she would only exhibit the Duckwalk Tease for him in private audience, he never thereafter was able to regain his composure on the checkered playground. A tragic story particularly as her Duckstrut became markedly less captivating (less inspired?) in the ensuing years whilst no other mistress could do it justice at all. He is described by most contemporaries as a lugubriously morbid man, others as a waste of God-given talent.

I have studied this line of play and see that, possibly due to a misprint of the original, 9-13 should have been followed by 24-20 rather than the deceptively “hot” 32-28, which concludes then in a draw only if Black misplays terribly with 8-12. 24-20, on the other hand, sets the game aright while revealing its truly luck-warm nature with a 14-17 28-24 etc. follow-up. Both get kings but neither triumph as play bogs down along the G-line (consult Oldbury’s diagonals of attack & defense). Even the rank novice will notice the insipid play here, too much skirting about the edges of the neglected battlefield. Better to take the plunge in a daring frontal assault (e.g. 6-10!) and skewer the Duck. Of course it needn’t be said that 33-29 is out of the question since modern board modifications have rendered that formerly dramatic alternative passé if not obsolete.

Notwithstanding the above, I was pleasantly surprised to learn one important piece of knowledge which had long eluded me, leaving a kind of vacuum in my innermost being. Having forgotten the name of Dinglehoff’s illustrious opponent, it always escaped me why I and others in my clan have long preferred J. Daniels over J. Beam. Now I know. Again, for interested enthusiasts it might be appropriate here to discuss the closely-related yet truly “hot” Prancing Pony variation. But I will resist the temptation.