In my continuing study of Foodcoats, I was watching Dan D'Argenio's Worlds 2015 match with Gary Bowerbank (on DLR - Eater - Keyhole - Val).
It is a much different game than the Hoyland v. Wong classic. A couple of observations from a far from expert player.
Dan's anticipation of his opponent's strategy was tremendous. The Turing on HQ makes perfect sense if your game plan is to hold a bunch of agendas in HQ while you keep slamming campaigns in your remote over and over again so you can money up enough to trash the DLR pieces. (Yes, as the commentators said, going Tag Me from the start was probably a mistake for Val.)
I would have been very tempted to put the Turing on R&D to slow down Keyhole, but it absolutely needed to be on HQ if he was going to spend a lot of time with a lot of agendas in his hand.
It looked to me like he had a plan all game to deal with bouncing back from or avoiding Siphons. In the late game when Gary landed a Siphon taking Dan down to zero, he had an Adonis ready and then played credit-credit Hedge to burst right back up to 9. He held that Hedge Fund for a long time, I assume waiting to use it for that purpose.
And his patience waiting for the Blackmails to come was also impressive.
In Hoyland's game, Dave was much more aggressive with fairly small servers and pushing agendas aggressively. In this game, Dan was much more patient and careful building to a lock out position and keeping on top of the money game the entire game.
Watching this game -- much more than Hoyland's -- I see why people say Rumor Mill is such a blunt instrument. Dan's deck would have been 100% neutered if Val were playing Rumor Mill instead of Hactivist.