The bot tells me my 1.e6 was too strong and I was lost from the start. For some reason I thought I had played 1.f5 as white. Congratulations to Cosimo for maintaining the advantage. 32.t16 took me by surprise.

In game 2276434, David played 1.e6. I swapped. He played 3.p12 and I played the usual Achilles defense. In the present game case, I agree that 3.o13 might not be appropriate. I was intrigued by the fact that 4. o11 (Hades defense) is also a 5:2 + 4:4 with f5, the junction points being k7 and j9.
After 5.i10, I did not find an immediate reply. J9 was excluded by 5.i10 and I feel 6.k7 as being too far. I chose 6.k8, as a control move. However, after 9.h6, I am not convinced that 6.k8 is that good.
At this point, I was about to play elsewhere, but I was playing other games at the same time. I was looking at my “Cyclopedia of lost games”, when I was intrigued by what I call the “back-ladder”. A “back-ladder” is a ladder that goes backward. It appears to be not productive but, if this ladder meets my pegs, it becomes useful. For example, in the game 876173 of this Commentator, there is a properly explained back-ladder. In my game 2239278, Alan Hensel found a winning back-ladder.
I was looking for a game in which David used a back-ladder against me. I found it. It was the 2288809, especially after the 12th move. At this stage, this game inspired me to play 10.i4, thinking 11.i3 12.j6 13.g4 14.h7 15.g8 and this is a real ladder, because I was under the guidelines. But the Master realized, and he built the c6, e7, g6 line to support the peg that will block my ladder.

17.l6 was the turning point. I could have cut him with 18. j6, but the potential column l6, o9, o13 was really dangerous. I decided 18.m12, trying to block him on the left side.
24.g12 was played to build the the g12, h14, o15 line to support the beloved Achilles defense with 28.g19.
29.j17 arrived unexpected for me. In a first instance, I thought to 30.g16, or probably 30.h16, or 30.k17, but I was not satisfied. All these moves trigger sequences bringing me to the right, and I was not sure that I was able to conclude satisfactorily these sequences. At this point I thought: “Have you to go eastward? And then, leave everything where is, and run away!” 30.i18.

32.t16 unexpected? If you are playing with me, Achilles defense is the most frequent defense! With 34. k17, I obliged him to defend in the upper part of the board.
After 35.t9, I thought to 36.r15, 36.p13, 36.r12 or something similar, but I was not satisfied. I felt like I was in a minefield and I do not know how to go on. And in the upper part? I did not find solutions, until I thought to the Perseus (3:2) attack against the Hercules defense. It was Letstry Laurent, that used against me in game 1912601 for the first time. Since then, I used it many times, especially during the MSO of 2019 (Gold medal for me), because it is surprising and effective if the opponent does not know this attack.
The correct reply is as David played. Thus 39.t8, 40.t5 and 41.r7. A bad attack?
I was about to discard it, when I recall the “back-ladder” logic: “Analyze the ladder until its end”. And where does the ladder go? 42.q6 43.p6 44.o5 45.n5 46.m4 and Black wins. I am particularly proud. I won with my Master by using what he had taught me. In this Championship, my Cyclopedia of lost games works efficiently.

Cosimo! Where do you get the names "Hades defense", "Hercules defense", and "Perseus attack"? I like them, and they make the moves feel easier to remember and think about.

I apologize for this late reply, but I have been busy with my work.
The naming convention that I use is probably due to Andreas Kleinhans, who played in the German gaming community around the '80. I can provide a lot of references of the period, but I believe that the story doesn't interest you.
You can find more details on this conventions in the booklet that accompanied the 1998 Kosmos edition. The author was Edi Füllemann and you can find it here (it works, thank to Hartmut). https://www.hiespielchen.de/twixt_einfuehrung/index.htm
Of course it is in German, but you can use online translators.
Another group of players wrote something here. http:twixt.wikifoundry.com
The link is not active, but I tried with the WebArchive and you can recover something.
I believe that it is important to have a nomenclature and recognizing the different patterns. My “collection of lost games” is organized dividing each interesting situation into Hercules, Achilles, Hades and so on.

Cosimo, this is all very interesting, thank you!

Hades defense appears to be nothing more than "2 in front" (2:0), while Hercules is four (4:0) -- could not find any reference to the Perseus attack