How's my attack?

My number one issue in my play is an inability to create strong combinations and a total inability to generate or recognize sacrifice opportunities.  So this next game I generate an obviously strong attacking possibility and I ended up winning, BUT I don't know how well my attack actually went because I am sure there are things my opponent could have done.  Anyways, here it is, feel free to comment about anything you see but try to focus on my play (Black) though comments on his play (White) are still fine.

Glad to hear what you guys have to say on my attacking attempts.

2. Bc4 You are correct, that I believe is the weakest developing move (within reason) that White can do

 6...Be6 I don't see anything wrong with it, although it does overprotect the d pawn. Perhaps Bf5 might have been better, controlling more of the center, although your bishop is hanging. Bg4  for the pin is refuted with Qd3, so although Be6 might seem slightly passive I think it's fine. 

 8....h6 is a poor move. His knight isn't doing anything there, so why waste tempo forcing it away. Better woulda been Nc6, threatening Nxd4 with an attack on his king's bishop, so he has to respond. And h6 is an easy target, all attacking players know this. He can line up his dark bishop and queen on the h6 pawn, and sack for great attacking potential. That's why I believe 11.Bf4 is perfectly reasonable.

I like 12.....Ne4. Nice 

And I agree, 14. dxc5 was dumb. c3 woulda been better, Supporting the d pawn and allowing his white bishop to get back into action. 

 21.Re2 was excellent. You're really taking advantage of his cramped pieces.

If he hadn't blundered with 23.Nb3, I woulda followed up with g3, to rip open his  kingside pawns. If he pushes the h pawn to h3, sack the white bishop. gxh3 leads to Rh2++ If he doesn't take, then Rf1+ Nxf1 Qxf1 ++ So basically, you were gonna win in a few moves no matter what he did. The key to a kingside attack is to rip apart his pawns with a build up of pieces. 

great in keeping tempo and driving his piecies back

One problem with your comment on 8. h6, I can't even come close to threatening d4 because his queen is sitting there guarding it as well as it would provoke ... c3, which I don't want to see.  Which leads to...

11. Bf4 is bad.  You can't debate that. He has no chance of a quick kingside attack.  He has no pressure, no coordination, and my Bishops are looking right at it.  He makes his move out, I threaten the open file, he actually lines his Queen and Bishop up as you suggest.  Ne4! he keeps it lined up.  But now when I threaten d4, he has to burn another tempo with Q to protect d4 or play c3 or he has to take, like he does) on c4.  Continuing though, his Bf4 is the only reason I can play ... g5 because it gets me a tempo and later gives an opportunity to push the g pawn and break his king open.  Again, without h6, no g5. Without Bf4, no g5.

I'd like to hear actual arguments more than one line quips without actual analysis.

attking!

Here's my take: 
19. True.  And taking his darkside bishop gives you an advantage.  The sacrifice was worth it.
    g4 pushes him back further, but does open the possibility of his taking your darkside bishop in 2 moves.
20. Ne1.  Appears you have established by this point in the game middle-board control.
21. I see it establishing the possibility of attacking him either left or right or using this as  a setup to then bring in on next few moves either another castle, bishop, or queen, or this is a good feint!
22. It's confirmed...you now have him backed up against a wall.  Here I would bring in the artillery and use either the castle bishop or queen to double penetrate his "wall".
23. Nb3??  He has just given you the keys to the kingdom.  When a player makes a move you are unsure why it was done just go back to your overall "mission" - attacking that corner and keeping the king where he is.  Which you did.
    He uncovers his LAST AND ONLY line of defense at this point by moving his knight.  Don't know what made him do that but it opens up a quick ending to the game.  Maybe his girlfriend just got home and was in a good mood :)

     It seems from my perspective that you did a great job of plowing through him and leaving yourself protected, even though I would think the "wall" defense would be best I now see that your offense was just as good a defense as any - he could not only not get through what you had set up defensively, but he also spent his time trying to keep you out of his "deep zone", what I call the 2 layers containing all the pieces on starting a game. 

 Anyone can feel free to comment on my comments.  I always appreciate input.

Thanks tonydal for a nice continuation.  And thanks grimreaper for trying.

Again, as I say in my original post, I know I smashed.  That's not the point.  I played pretty well and got to a very good position to amount a successful attack.  My attack ended up only working as a result of a huge mistake on his part.  Is there a better attack?  Was there a point where I left myself open to strong counterplay?  Did I miss a strong sacrifice to get his king out or transfer my obvious positional and space plus in a material one?

How would you have attacked differently is my main concern.  I am not looking for any confirmation, I think I played solidly, but I want to see if there was some opportunity for better than merely solid play.

...

...

 That's exactly what I just said.  Thank you for successfully wasting a post to point out what I just pointed out.  I know it only worked because he made a mistake.  That's why I just said that.  So I am asking, what could I have done better?

I agree with feyterman. If you are critical of yourself and complimentary of your opponent you will learn more chess and be a better person.

Further, a refresher course on annotating a game with puncuation: !-good or best move, !!-bonecrushing, usually a winner that is not obvious (like a queen sacrifice), ?-a bad move that shifts the game's equilibrium, !? - an interesting move but not the best move, ?!-a dubious move that may have some trap attacked, ??-a losing blunder, usually a piece drop or falling into checkmate.

 On the praise side, you show promise in the way you shoved the QP, and infiltrated his kingside. The Rook to e2 concept is a good one, it shows you are thinking about rank and file which is the next stage of development in being a good player.

As I understand it, !? also denotes lines you are unsure of the soundness and needs more analyzing to see how good it actually is.  Also, from reading anotations of pros, !! usually marks the point at which the game is effectively won while ?? means the game is all but lost.  In both cases, dxc5 and c4, an otherwise relatively even game was swung largely in my favor.  Maybe just one question mark, but until that point my edge was slight.  However, at the junction at which I was able to develop my dark bishop and push my pawn, I had enough coordination that I was in a great position.

I am not criticizing the player.  I am saying he played subpar moves.  Great players can make bad moves.  A lot of them.  I make tons and I am nowhere near great.  However, analysis isn't supposed to be about being nice, it is supposed to look for the best plays so that each player can learn and get better.

If you don't want feedback then don't ask for it. Your opponent didn't make "a mistake", he made many. For yourself, 6.. Be6 and 8.. h6 were both fairly weak moves. 2 Bc4 is playable and is a method to try to get Sicilian players out of main line sicilians.

Try analysing your own game as harshly as you have his and maybe you will learn something.