Hi everybody! First time posting here. :)

(This is actually my second try at posting this, as the first time I encountered some sort of a bug, and my post did not go through. I did have the content copied though, so the following is directly pasted from that. I hope that the embeded game comes out ok.)

This is an exiting game I played yesterday on another site; I'm playing black, playing a losing position most of the game, but managed to win the game in the end with a rather sneaky mating tactic. Got away with murder in the middle game, should have lost it right there and then, but my opponent was equally blind to the horrendous blunder. Afterwards it got really interesting. I'd appreciate comments. There's probably stuff I've missed in my post game  analysis. Haven't used a computer to analyze it. Oh, and the time limit was 15 minutes for the game. Here it is (click open the move list for variations):

Steg,

I think you mean that this was an exciting (as opposed to exiting) game!

You had me worried for a moment ,

Pricey

I like the bit where you offer up your queen and white refuses

well, you were damn lucky you kept your queen but I really liked how you found the best practical chances in a losing position. It's nice how in the final position white has that massive chunk of power hovering around the white king in the form of the pair of queens and the rook but they're utterly useless. Even though the action is right next door. 

27. Bd5 was really ugly. Retreating the bishop and bringing the kings rook over to support the passed pawns and taking it out of harms way would have been tough to meet.

Yeah, an exciting game it was, indeed.

It just goes to show that it's easy to forget about defense when you have a winning material advantage - and especially in a position like that where the king seems to be surrounded by powerful pieces. It's easy to miss that the king was actually quite vulnerable.

When in a losing position, I think it's important to give your opponent as many opportunities to screw up as possible.

Thanks for the comments.