I thought I could handle the Wayward Queen attack - and then this happened.

I play the wayward Queen attack on occasion - but usually expect my opponent to know what they're doing in the book move stage, but still for me to emerge with a decent set up.  

I also thought I'd already become adept at repelling such an attack, having beaten the Nelson bot on  numerous occasions. 

According to the analysis I was well and truly on the back foot from 6...Nxd4.   I knew for sure I was in trouble from 9. Bxf6 and from then on really struggled as to what to do. 

My opponent missed checkmate on move 20.  

Is there much I could've done after move 6 or 9 to rescue the game? 

Move 7 was where it went wrong, I think, because your DSB came off the diagonal where it could break the pin on your knight. Easy to say in retrospect, but maybe bringing the LSB out to g4 and castling long would have been a safer approach? Your opponent was evil, though, despite missing mate in one.

I considered castling long but thought it would take too long. 

Having looked at the players recent games as White he really seems to like playing this attack so perhaps he's used to the different lines and knew exactly what to do. 

He was full on evil though - no let up. 

Move 6 I think I would've taken with the pawn 6...exd4. You have better options on move 7 then no matter the response. I would definitely be wanting to castle queenside after moving the pawns in defence of wayward queen. Like Ben says though, it's easy to comment in retrospect.

It is better to play 3. ... Qe7 because you don't weaken your kingside darksquares (which caused you problems in the game).

Cheers for the responses. 

It would appear that 6...exd4 is indeed the best move.  The analysis board confirms this. 

During the game I just didn't see it.   I thought 76...Bxd4 would give me greater scope, I didn't see the pin on the knight/queen at all until it happened. 

I also had a chance to bring the DSB back to e7 on move 11 which would've been better than pushing d6. 

You need to pay attention to the board and the situation at hand. You left your knight on prix to your opponent's attack. You should safeguard him. Further, don't play g6 unless you plan to fiancetto to your bishop. That leaves gaping hole in pawn structure on kingside.

     The problem is that the "Wayward Queen Attack" is garbage and only  weak players will be unable to refute it. You won't really progress at chess until you learn to play more solidly.

En prise

En (on) prise (prize)

prix (prize)

on prix = en prise.

White did not play 18 Qxg6# (18 Bxf7+ Kxf7 would have restored material parity), 20 Qxg7# and 23 Qg7#.

I think after you were forced to play g6, on move you should have played Bg6 rather than Bc5

I could see the mate in one on move 20 and considering how well my opponent played I'm surprised he missed it.

I've just spent my break looking at Master level games and after the g6 line they all (as black) play bg7. You can learn something from those masters. :peaceful

Is that the reason why white missed two checkmates? At move 20. and 23.?

the WQ attack may be rubbish but the idea of the bishop b3 and h-pawn + pieces attack against a castled king are solid themes.   Several more legit openings end up there, with similar results.  

Bc5 seems a bit wrong. Why not just play 5 ...d6?

I recommend 5...Nd4. This attacks the queen, making your opponent lose a tempo defending it, and if it is not moved in a way that defends the c pawn, you can get a tasty fork between the king and rook.

Something else to keep in mind is that there was a lot of pressure on your king side but you moved every single defending piece except one rook to the queen side, where they were cut off from defending your king.