A won game lost because of invisible threats

This game was very instructional for me. Jeremy Silman is adament about conceding to your opponents plans only when real threats are immenent. I kept my cool for most of the game while my opponent massed his pieces around my king, instead focusing on my own plans, but in the end I reacted to an invisible threat that cost me a game that I should have won.

You say that 19 Bxg6 doesn't work, what about 21 Qh6?

My favorite part is the annotation on move 21 says "My opponent is floundering" and then on move 23 you're getting mated.

In the computer analysis line of 22. ... cxd4, what about 23. Rxh7+. I wouldn't be surprised if the conclusion of this is beyond the horizon of the computer. After 23. ... Kxh7 24. Qh5+ then Kg8 looks losing to Bxg7 and 24. ... Kg7 is very tricky, looks like there is at least a perpetual check in there for black.

I used your game for some study for myself i hope you don't mind saying some comments ?

I think both players missed Nxd5 ? 11. Nxd5 Bh4+ 12. g3 Bxg3+ 13. hxg3 Nxg3 14.Nxc7+ Kd7 is very complicated, but interesting enought to look at.

I Don't like Nxc3 you exchange your most active piece just to fix a small longterm weakness in the game where i.m.o. activity and kingsafety is more important. I would have played something like this: 11... O-O-O 12. Bxc6 bxc6 13. Qa6+ Kb8 14. Rf1 Qg6.

After 13. Bd3 when i look at the position it reminds me from some tactical diagram/pattern(white pieces are ready for attack). I think if you look at the position it should ring the alarmbells that i.m.o. your king is unsafe and you have absolute zero counterplay.

I thought about: 14... g6 15. Rf3 Qe6 16. Bh6 Rfe8 17. Raf1 Nd8, but it it is just too passive. 17. ... Na5 is a tempoloss it makes 18. Rh3 g6 19. Qf4! Threatens Qh6, g5 doesn't work  because the Queen sneaks in g4-h5 and Bg5 loses a piece.

So basiclly i don't agree with your conclusion: invisible threats. I think the game was kinda lost after 13. Bd3. because white could slowly play for a win on the King Side and Black "counterplay"at the Queen side is just too slow.

I agree, it does win the bishop and continues to threaten my king. Good eye!

My opponent certainly did miss some crushing tactics like...

Thanks for everyone's analysis - it is apparent that my passive play allowed white to dominate the game. Positional mistakes and detrimental exchanges definitely left me with a game that was strategically lost.

However I would like to defend the move Na5 which has been criticized. Na5-c4 is the only means of activating my pieces. Ultimately it did not do any good, however given the situation I could not see a better alternative.

Finally, my opponent was rated 2080, and this was correspondence chess; he had plenty of time and an analysis board. So why didn't he see moves like Bxh7? I believe the psychology of this game is important. I had been reading Silman at the time, and I was determined to give the impression of controlled reactions and steadfast planning. I like to think that my (false) confidence managed to display itself to my opponent, making him wary of risky moves.