Hi, I wanted to make a few adjustments to my post after seeing a couple mistakes. I have left my original commentary (that you may find in the first post) in normal font, and put my comments-or rather, edits on my commentary (funny, huh?) in bold.
EDIT I: Main Commentary on move 6.a3
"A failed attempt at prophylaxis, as I was not planning on ever moving my dark-squared bishop to b4-it simply does not belong there. My opponent could plead his intentions of playing b4, but that would seem quite absurd." I should have mentioned that at the time, I did not know whether or not he would follow up with b4, so I can not justifiably call the move "absurd", as I did not have the advantage of hindsight. In retrospect it is absurd, especially because my opponent never played b4, but I could have never known that during the game.
EDIT 2: Main commentary on move 15...Be7
"...Bf6 is an interesting alternative." This move may not make sense as it appears to hang that f-pawn, but I unfortunately forgot to add a vital variation. Below is the variation on that specific move.
EDIT 3: Main commentary on move 23...a5
"An insane move. I continue leaving the pawn en prise (which I started doing on move 21) and DO NOT leash my lethal discovery. Why? Because sometimes fear of the bark is worse than the bark itself. Yes, I made that up, I know it makes no sense but it does to me. The fear of the discovery, and the fact that white must be constantly worrying about possible discoveries is quite...unsettling. Plus, I don't really have any good discoveries. ...a5 sets up ...Bb4 should I wish to play it, but I do not-...b4 seems much more appealing." Perhaps this move was a bad idea, because ...Rc8 didn't seem to be much a threat, it was more a pyschological move, which I should not have played in a chess game. If White would have proceeded with 24. Rxd5!, he would have the advantage, because, scary though the c-file battery looks, there are frankly no real threats of mine.
Thank you for reading this "Odds and Ends" Post, and please comment and leave feedback. Thank you! 
* I would like to apologize for all the time I used +/= or +/- when I meant -/= or -/+. For some reason I thought that +/= was interpreted as such that whoever player's move it was, they were the ones who the symbol applied to. For example, if it was Black's move 37, and I put +/-, I meant -/+, and if it was White's move 37, and I put +/-, I meant +/-. Please interpret it every times it comes up as "the player whose move it is is white". I'm very sorry if this sounds confusing (I daresay it is, I'm a bit confounded myself) and I again apologize for this error. Thank you.*
