Game tips on my recent match

Hey guys, I'm looking for a bit of constructive criticism on this game that I just played. Anything to do with moves that I should have made or perhaps moves that I should not have. I know that I made a couple of moves that were useless because I changed my mind on what I wanted to do i.e. move 32+33. Did I just win because the other guy made a mistake or otherwise? Just anything really would be helpful. Thanks guys.

I started with a King's Indian Attack as an opener, I'm not sure what it was that the opposition used. I played d4 instead of d3 in the KIA. Looking forward to hearing some feedback.

My credentials: I am roughly a 1500 level blitz player on chess.com, and I play blitz almost exclusively. I love to read about chess, and consider myself fairly educated on the principles behind it. Hopefully I'm not too patzerish too help you out.

Positionally, you seem to have made your dark squared bishop worse and worse throughout the whole game, not that you used it, really. With moves like 10. e5? (I've always heard maintaining the tension, as a rule of thumb is better. Also, this shuts off the h2-b8 diagonal), 13. a3, and most of all 17. f4?? (aside from being positionally inferior, you can win a piece, as I said below), it seemed like you were building a barrier of pawns between the enemy's pieces and your dark squared bishop.

Also, instead of 17. f4, you had a very sweet tactic: 17. Nb3 Qe2 18. Bxh6 wins a piece, I'm pretty sure. 29. f5 would have been the proper exploitation of the pin of the pawn to the queen, as well.

Overall, I think you should practice forming plans, and following them most effeciently and consistently. You do this already, but there are, um...inconsistencies? in your play, I think. Nxg6 was a good spot, by the way.

You're quite right, I pretty much disabled my dark bishop with how I used my pawns. I think that when I made the 'wall' with the pawns I had in mind that the KIA meant that white was weak queen side, so I aimed to neutralise the advantage that black would get over this.

I agree with everything you've said by the way. And if I had seen/comprehended the moves that you'd suggested the game might have ended sooner. Thanks wooden. :)

I am not an expert by any means so I'm more interested in learning than giving you advice.  In move 3 why did you do Nbd2?  Lately, I've been playing on a principle of maximizing the power of my pieces where possible.  That move blocks both your queen and bishop, Nc3 makes more sense to me as your knight is more powerful there, it protects the same center square from having his knight jump, and leaves your other pieces open.  Am I missing something?

Also:

"Also, instead of 17. f4, you had a very sweet tactic: 17. Nb3 Qe2 18. Bxh6 wins a piece, I'm pretty sure."

I don't understand this, Qe2?  I don't see how Qe2 is even an option, Qe7 maybe?  And just for my own learning, why do Nb3 instead of Ndf3?  Results in the same capture of the bishop, leaves Qg4 open, knight remains more powerful and in a more functional part of the board, true, blocks off the Queen, but if they move their Queen to Qe7, it allows the bishop to back track and remain protected a move later.  Thoughts?

- 3. Nbd2 is unusual, but it's playable. I believe it is the defining move of the tarrasch variation in the french or caro-kann opening. The difference is that Nbd2 covers the c4 square as opposed to the d5 square. The way he played the opening, there was a hole on c4 and not d5; it seems justifiable to me.

- First of all, you're right. I meant Qe7 I said 17. Nb3 instead of Nf3 because I was worried about 17...Qg3, and would rather kick the queen back. However, at a second glance, 17. Nf3 Qg3 18. h3 wins the queen anyway. Point(s) taken.