In short, it is not a real blunder. It is an inaccuracy. The only way to have a small edge is to sacrifice a pawn with c3 after which you will play Nxc3 and then at the convenient moment Bg5 that will give you the edge after either Nd5 or Nb5 that threatens a fork on c7. If you find this during the game, you would be 2 000 rated at least. 
So forget it, too complicated.
a3 is a bigger mistake by you. It is too slow in any case, but here it doesn't exploit the bad queen on f6. You should play either d5 that makes the knight go back after which you have lead in development, or to play Nc3 after which you seemingly lose a pawn, but not really.
The idea will be to retake the knight after he takes with the knight and after he retakes with the pawn to play Nd5 attacking the queen and c7 pawn. He has to play Qd8 and then you just retake the pawn on d4 with the queen. If he takes with the pawn after Nc3, you play Nd5 immediately and the same line happens. After that you have a lead in development.
Hard day and I’m not seeing well at all…
Nah I don't think bg5 was the blunder but a3 was, a3 came just before bg5 and what happened is you apparently hung the pawn d4 and then played bg5
Nah I don't think bg5 was the blunder but a3 was, a3 came just before bg5 and what happened is you apparently hung the pawn d4 and then played bg5
It does temporarily, that is true, I forgot to mention it. Though most likely he would be able to regain it with something like Nd2 to Nb3 even, because c5 is not the most stable square for the bishop because of b5. There would be some tactics and complications perhaps, but he would probably be able to regain the pawn.
But for sure, a3 was bad because instead of having the initiative due to Qf6 from the opponent, he was fighting for the equality.
I understand why many people play an early a3 and h3, but in most cases it is unnecessary and wastes time. People should make those moves early only if normal development brings some concrete downside.
Normal developing moves can score some quick wins, especially after the opponent wastes time or play something like Qf6 that impedes development. One or 2 tempi down in the opening can snowball if the opponent keeps wasting time, which they do from time to time.
I am not sleeping well these days and therefore have a difficult time recognizing what I am seeing.
What I am seeing is a couple of screenshots. What is the point of that? Why don't you post a link to the game so that others can check the analysis?
I am not sleeping well these days and therefore have a difficult time recognizing what I am seeing.
What I am seeing is a couple of screenshots. What is the point of that? Why don't you post a link to the game so that others can check the analysis?
Because I am not familiar with how to do that.
Nah I don't think bg5 was the blunder but a3 was, a3 came just before bg5 and what happened is you apparently hung the pawn d4 and then played bg5
Is the pawn considered to be hanging when my knight and queen are still covering it? My understanding was that a hanging piece has no other piece covering it - or is that incorrect?
A hanging piece is any pieces taken for free in that way that pawn was hanging, but the question I was answering was "why was bg5 a blunder?" I called the pawn hanging because you couldn't take it back after the bruhaahaa but you got a queen for a bishop and a pawn so you should be up 4 points but yes usually you call a hanging piece one taken for free which usually means without a guard but in the higher ELO it means for free piece you can't guard because other side prepared better like discovered attack on the queen
4. a3? was a clear mistake as the d4-pawn was hanging. You should have played d5 there and kicked the c6-knight. 5. Bg5?! is not a blunder as it doesn't immediately lose material, but it certainly does not help your position after Qg6 followed by h6. Obviously, 5...Qxg5?? is a massive blunder.
Why is Bg5 a blunder? Full disclosure: I am not sleeping well these days and therefore have a difficult time recognizing what I am seeing.