Fairly Even Game (Where did I go wrong?)

Comments welcomed.

I'm going to run this through the computer later but I would like to hear original analysis from human players first.

10. ... b6 seems fine, but doesn't feel quite right given the open nature of the position.  10. ...bf5 seems more natural, and 10. ... d4 is an interesting attempt to punish white's slow pawn play.  

15. ... bg5 seems like another minor mistake.  His bishop is filling the role of a pawn, why do you want to go out of your way to trade for it? 

20. ... ne4 - missed opportunity blunder!  Always look at penetrating with the rook.  Here, re2 is probably winning

32. ...g6 you looked 100% fine to me before this move, but this allows white to fix your pawn on a light square to your disadvantage.  

34.  ...a4?  No offense, but its clear you don't understand how to play bishop endgames.  You are once again fixing one of your pawns on the same color square as your bishop.  This ties your bishop down to defending pawns that could not be attacked on dark squares.  It sounds like a little issue but I suspect you are already lost by virtue of these two mistakes (g6 and a4).

Gonna stop here, hope this was helpful.     

Thank you for your analysis!

34...a4 - I saw that this made the pawn a potential target and was aware of the principle it went against, but I got caught up in playing hope chess and I was dreaming of promotion. More specifically, I had seen to move 38...Bc2 before I played a4 and had illusions about it and, only realized right before I played it, that I missed the rather obvious reply 39.Ke2 and was left with nothing but another weakness and a losing position. It's a shame too, I felt like I was playing good chess in the middlegame and then I play moves like this that go against basic fundamentals in the endgame. I guess I'll take this lesson the hard way and stick to the fundamentals.

32..g6 - Indeed. I felt it hurt me but I wasn't sure that it was losing per say. I didn't make the connection about fixing my pawn on a white square until later. That is a very good point and I should of saw that.  I was worried about the kingside so I ruled out moving my king away from it. I felt that the position was pretty equal before this move and that the biggest thing at this point was that I should of realized that I should play for a draw and not try to force a win by playing hope chess.

20...Ne4 - Oh no! My dream was opening up the d-file. Again, a more forcing move was better than the one that I played quickly. That's a trend of mine. I need to focus on analyzing forcing moves first. I need to make sure that I find forcing moves whenever possible. If I would of done this, I would of found 20...Re2 rather easily as it is kind of an obvious move. I find it funny that I didn't consider Re2 until later... That seems to be a very frequent theme for me. This is unrelated but I have found a way to work on it though. I have learned by solving tactics that I often get the move order wrong but the moves right. I started focusing on finding the idea and only then start analyzing each move that helps achieve that idea. I think doing this has made me much stronger. 

15...Bg5 - I'll quote my analysis here :

"Perhaps 15..Rd8 was better. A knight trade is surely coming and I could open the d-file with advantage perhaps." 

So, my question is this: What do you think of 15...Rd8 instead?

10...b6 - I think 10...d4 would of been interesting indeed. I just thought my bishop would be well placed on b7 and that is all.

Thank you so much for commenting. It was very helpful indeed. I bolded what I felt are the biggest lessons of this game. Thanks again.

15. ... rd8 does look more logical.  I don't think 15. ... bg5 was problematic per se, just struck me as curious to trade off that inactive bishop.  

 In hindsight, I wouldn't of played 15...Bg5 because I didn't like it when 17.f4 was played. That is when I really questioned it.

I have problems with sporadic thinking in my games. I think of the bishop as a tall pawn. Then, I think of the potential it will have later. Next I started trying to justify 15...Bg5 saying that it has to be correct because now my rook is attacking the pawn, white's development is yet again delayed, and 15...g5 is too committing (I analyzed 15...g5 for a long time, mainly because the queens are off the board, and came to that conclusion. The computer doesn't agree.). Trying to justify moves needs to stop as it is probably the root to my thinking problems. Instead I should logically list what moves do for me and choose based on that. I think this kind of play inherently leads to most of my problems when I don't simply miss a tactic or blunder. As I play more chess, I am starting to really find out how psychological the game of chess is. If I keep calm and continually play logical moves while at the same time casting out illogical moves, no doubt I will improve. Funnily enough,  I remember playing Chessmaster and going through the lessons while skipping over the ones based on psychology. I would scoff and say "Those lessons have to be worthless, this is just chess!" 

Your opponent strategy: trade pieces and go to end game thinking that since you are lower rated, you will be weak at end game.

Where you went wrong:

1)you should not have traded pieces (particularly ministers) so easily in the first place. His king was more vulnerable in the middle game.

2) king activity. Your king was less active than his king. If you traded pieces to go into end game, then you should have activated your king.

in same color bishop endings --- always keep your pawn OFF the color of the bishops. And your opponents pawns ON