I've already analyzed this game very heavily, but with my 1700 rating, I'm bound to have made a number of mistakes and contributions to my analysis would be more than welcome.  The game itself is not very well played, as it's from back when I was around 1300 rating, but it's still worth analyzing.  Here is the game, along with my analysis. 

nice game.. pretty well played, cool analysis

well that comment took a lot of thought.. did you even look at the game?

Some people appreciate compliments.  You apparently are not one of them.

That was definitely rude of me to say that, and I probably shouldn't have.. it just seems like 3 out of 4 posts on chess.com are very short, and are just to get a member point for posting and it's frustrating.

However, you are both correct in that it was not my place to say that, and I apologize for my rudeness.

Something a little ironic.. I actually didn't look at the game or the analysis at all, I just wanted the member points so I commented =P.  averagepatzer was sort of right lol

You realise member points don't really get you anything right?

This kind of stuff annoys me - it would be good if this forum actually elicited some, you know, game analysis, rather than endless pointless comments.

I'm not sure that f4 was such a massive blunder - certainly aggressive, though. It would have taken time to arrange, but you might have thought about 9. Qf3, followed by developing the bishop, the knight to d2, castling long and playing g4. Just an alternative plan that might just be possible due to black's own difficulties in developing.

I think I probably would have played 17. Rg3 Qxd3 18. cxd3.

thank you for the analysis :) But I don't see how white can meet 9...Bxc2 following 9.Qf3.  It looks like black trades a tempo for a pawn and is able to keep the advantage, but I'm probably missing something obvious.

you probably are.  but no one cares

was that necessary to say?

Don't mind him.  He's obviously a troll.

you're a troll.  shut up

I have many objections with your analysis, so I've quoted and numbered them to state my opinion on why I analyzed it differently.  This is in no way a personal or impersonal attack on your analysis, I'm just saying where I disagree.

1. What's so important about the f3 knight?  I don't see why white can't hope for the best without it.  The only reason that I don't like the push to f4 is because it drastically overextends white's pawns.  The knight is a strong piece, sure, but it's not all important.  The thing is that the e5 pawn is weak because it has no backup. 

A side note: after 11... c5???  12. Bb5+! Ke7 13. Ba3!  is winning for white.  Castling is vital in the position.

2. Black isn't fine.  He doesn't head for an active endgame, he almost wins on the spot due to the many weaknesses in white's position.  The d4 and e5 pawns can not hold against black's bishop and rooks.  The position is impossible for white, and I can safely evaluate it at -+.

3.  After 14... Bg5?  Black is weaker.  He had a huge advantage due to the color of his bishop and the possible undermining he could have executed, but he throws it away for no reason.

4. I don't agree with this at all.  Black has no reason to play c5, as white does not need to take on c5 and wreck his pawns.  Also, black can not apply sufficient pressure on d4 as to account for pushing the pawn to c5.  Lastly, I like 15. Rg3! Qh6 16. Qb5! with a clear advantage to white as a retort, although black may have a response I overlooked.

5. I don't think that 18. Re1 is a bad move as the idea behind it is to lift the rook via e4.  There were probably better moves to play though.

6.  18... Rad8?!  is not strong because instead of playing into black's hands with 19. Rd1? and letting black take control, I would have played 19. Re4!.  The reason that Rad8 gets a dubious mark in my book is that it forces white to make a move he planned on making.

another side note: 22. Rbb3 probably didn't deserve the ? I gave it, but I really dislike it because it strays from the winning plan of doubling the rooks on the b file.  However, your analysis of Rgb3 is incorrect, as after 23... Rd8?! White can play 23. a5! and if black errs and takes the pawn, white gets an unstoppable advantage due to his increased queenside majority when he wins the c-pawn and takes the 7th.

Another side note: I think that your analysis of 30. d5!? is interesting and I agree with you that both sides have chances in the rapid endgame to come.  However, I think white is favored as his majority is in the center while black's is on the queenside.

7.  after 31... axb6, White would take the initiative by playing d5 instead of playing into black's hand and isolating his e pawn and moving his rook to a passive location.

I apologize if I am coming across here as condescending or argumentative.  This is just my take on your analysis, and I don't know who's right or wrong.

wow, way to write too much.  NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR IT!!!!

Wow, that was the best refute I've heard all day.  You clearly aren't a troll.  Please forgive me.

Good one, trollasaurus rex! 

I'm taking this opportunity to address something I see a lot here (so I'm not just talking about you, Calvin--it happens all the time):  people post games in the Game Analysis just bristling with their own analyses.  There are three reasons why I (and quite possibly it isn't only me) am not gonna bother looking through your game to any great extent:

1) you have already analyzed it extensively yourself;

2) you say yourself it's an old game and wasn't very well-played;

3) the notes are filled with all this blue ink (and red ink) that I can barely wade through.  I assume this is your own analysis (but even more painfully people will often include the site computer's analysis, along with its [frequently meaningless to humans] numerical evaluation of the positions).

Reason #2 doesn't lead me to believe that the game's gonna be any too enthralling, and #3 tends to give the viewer a headache.  But it's #1 that I think is the key sticking point.  I've learned from experience here that people aren't gonna listen to anything if they've already got their minds made up.  So I'm afraid I have serious doubts about the following comment of yours:

"I apologize if I am coming across here as condescending or argumentative.  This is just my take on your analysis, and I don't know who's right or wrong."

I really didn't look any farther than the first 3 comments on AnthonyCG that you quoted, but they all seem reasonable to me.  The position after White's 14th move I would evaluate as giving you a small advantage (certainly you are no worse, with all of your piece activity).  White responds to 14... f6 with 15 ef and he has a fine game.

Yes it's true, 11... c5 was a lapse of judgment (and btw the only move that would ever fully deserve a ??? is 1 e4 d5 2 ed Qxd5 3 Ke2)...but there is a more incisive line there than your idea (which might allow Black to escape [relatively] undamaged after 13... f6).  Winning nicely would be 12 Rxf5 ef 13 Bb5+ Ke7 14 Bg5+ f6 15 ef+ gf 16 Qe2+ Kf7 17 Qh5+ Ke6 18 Re1+.  All of White's pieces join in the attack, and Black's only developed piece is his king!  The 2 bishops work marvelously together.