lebesgue72 vs. giant1137: Sicilian dragon: 8/14/14

Hi! This is a game I played today. It's a a sicilian dragon, with something similar to a yugoslav attack. I had never seen the Be3 move for white, developing the dark-squared bishop. I went ahead with kingside castles, and a a6,b5 pawn thing, to get my light-squared bishop working. However, it was not until later that my bishop got into the game - I'm not sure where the best square for it would have been, but I'm sure it could have been much better. White took advantage of the f3 move(which was also defending their e-pawn from my fianchetooed light-square bishop) to begin a kingside pawn storm. I'm not sure if I'm a big fan of these races to mate the kings on opposite sides of the board. My kingside knight got pushed to the silly-looking h7 square, where it didn't contribute until the very end. I got some mjor pieces on the c-file, with the c4-square in mind. It turned out that white's light-squared bishop, develop to e2, was well-placed to take out my knight once it got there. Also, if i did any sort of Nh5 with my kingside knight, it'd be able to take out that knight, and wrench some of my kingside pawns away from the protection of my king. I missed a Qxd3 capture, when things would have been unclear for both sides without further analysis. White missed a Qxg6 capture, which I think would have been game over for black. In general, I couldn't have good homes for my queenside knight, and my light-squared bishop, things I definitely would have changed if given the opportunity to lay this game again. The decision for the placement of the light-squared bishop was probably something to be much more careful in considering, much earlier. If I'm to play a rate-to-mate with opposite side castling, I probably want to learn more about minority attacks in these positions. Here's the game: