How would you have handled this opening?

I was black and I will annotate what I was thinking up until the mate threat. I know 5...h6 wasn't the best, but I wasn't sure how to handle the LSB bishop and I thought I would keep my options open in case B to e4 could be played.

Why were you reluctant to trade light-squared Bishops? With all of your center Pawns on light squares, the lsB is your bad Bishop... and trading leaves White stuck with that miserable specimen on c1, locked in by all those Pawns on dark squares.

Not sure how Carlsen had a better DSB in this game. I get the idea of the pawn formation being bad, but in this game Carlsen hemmed in his DSB, and doesn't seem like it is any better than what white did in my game.

This one is an interesting game. Nakamura also caged in his DSB, but he was able to bring it out and get it on the long diagonal, and it wasn't Bb2 or the usual Bf4 moves.

In the Nakamura - Smirnov game, White had a considerable amount of help from his opponent in activating his Bishop.

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Carlsen and Nakamura examples.  When an opponent puts so many pawns on the same color squares and then gives you a chance to trade off their good bishop, you should jump at the opportunity.  Sure, people sometimes, with a lot of effort, manage to turn a bad bishop into a good one, but they'll never get the real good bishop back.  Those holes they created aren't going away any time soon.

If you want a really nice model for how to counter a stonewall formation (the d4-e3-f4 pawn setup that White has chosen in this game), take a look at what Petrosian did to it in a fine game against Korchnoi (quite early in both their careers).  Petrosian had White, and Korchnoi tried a stonewall setup as Black.

Very fist thing White does here is to eliminate Black's good bishop (in this case, it's the DSB).  Then, because the position is close,d he has time to manouver his knights so that they completely dominate the e5 hole.  This square is crucial.  It's a strong outpost in enemy territory where no pawn can never remove the knight.  Neither can a bishop once the DSB has been traded off, and once Petrosian gets both his knights pointed at it, not even a Black knight can contest the outpost because he can recapture with the other knight.  For me, one of the most impressive moves here is 11 Qc1.  Although the queen takes a long time in going anywhere from there, it's exploiting the absence of the Black DSB to quietly dominate the dark squares all the way through the middlegame.

"I'm not sure what you're getting at with the Carlsen and Nakamura examples."

I am not sure what the comment about the "miserable specimen on c1" was getting at either.

"When an opponent puts so many pawns on the same color squares and then gives you a chance to trade off their good bishop, you should jump at the opportunity."

Is that a robotic non-human thinking reply or is there breathing human reasoning behind that statement? I showed two games where black did that at high level GM games.

"take a look at what Petrosian did to it in a fine game against Korchnoi"

First, the game I played and the games shown were dealing with white's DSB. The game you showed is white dealing with black's bishop, and that bishop was the LSB, not the DSB. 

Second, I don't see why we are justifying the good/bad bishop buzzword terminology with an early f5 that is not warranted. Calling it a stonewall doesn't validate it.

If there is chess theory Korchnoi was following it appears to be outdated. What black should have done was something more like this.

Ah, sorry. I thought you were looking for advice. Turns out you’re looking for validation. Can’t help you there. 

Yes, advice from 2020, not 1946. 

Not sure I understand the point.

When you can play as well as people did back in the 1700s, then you can ignore any theory from the 1600s. You've got quite a way to go before you can ignore 1940s theory, though.

If theory from 100 years ago holds water today, then players today would be using it as well. This shouldn't be about me personally and my rating. It should be about WHAT IS THE RIGHT MOVE regardless if you are 1000 or 2500.

The correct move doesn't transform and change relative to someone's rating. The correct move is the correct move.

If I am going to study the Stonewall, I am going to study this game and not the one with Q going to h5.

LOL, I never denied it. But it seems you don't like it when I point out old (dead) guys' games are not that good today. Don't get butthurt over it.

That's where you're wrong.

If your focus is on improving as a chess player, then identifying the "best move" is almost irrelevant.

Even if you were able to memorize it perfectly, it would only help you with that ONE position out of the billions of billions of valid chess positions.

You should be trying to develop the correct methods of thought, the proper way of looking at a position, assessing it, and identifying the three or four logical candidate moves to focus your attention on.

For this purpose, games by the older masters (that 1940s stuff you were sneering at, and indeed, 1910s stuff too) are far better than modern games.

Modern play is far too nuanced to make sense to amateur players. Games by the old masters, played back when defensive technique was more primitive, are far more instructive and have much more pedagogical value.

... but what do I know? I'm only twice your rating...

"If your focus is on improving as a chess player, then identifying the "best move" is almost irrelevant."

What is this malarkey?

"Even if you were able to memorize it perfectly"

Memorize one move? 

"You should be trying to develop the correct methods of thought, the proper way of looking at a position, assessing it, and identifying the three or four logical candidate moves to focus your attention on."

And what makes you think I haven't?

"For this purpose, games by the older masters (that 1940s stuff you were sneering at) are far better than modern games."

I don't want to play like unsuccessful older masters. If you guys squeeze all the juice out of that Korchnoi game, and that's as far as you want to go then I guess you will be happy with the limits of that understanding.

"Modern play is far too nuanced to make sense to amateur players."

Modern play shows me comparatively what works and what doesn't work. I am not interested in using 1800 logic to beat 1500.

You can be low level and appreciate 2500 play.

"Games by the old masters, played back when defensive technique was more primitive, are far more instructive and have much more pedagogical value."

But they don't lead to higher wins.

Do you want more wins because you can beat lower rated players, go for it. That is just ego boosting.

"... but what do I know? I'm only twice your rating..."

Yea, that is what this is all about. As long as you are higher rated than the person you are talking to, you can always default to that card being played. 

In reality you are not even a GM and perhaps your line of thinking is what is keeping you down. 

You should ask @GambitShift

You two would get along very well

He may offer a free lecture, if you're willing to pay

You should ask @GambitShift

Twins separated at birth?

Both seem to have bishop brain farts

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/how-do-i-break-the-4-for-5-obsession-b-for-r

They write alike also, just sayin