My opinion is that you try to hard to prove that you understand the position but your comments prove rather the opposite.
On the endgame with a rook up comments like:
"Spying a mating net with the knight and rook."
"Nice Zugzwang!"
"Incorrect, Kg7 holds off."
are at least funny(if not ridiculous).
Your other comments are no less funny:
Nf6Another flexible move. I praise my opponent for his flexible play. My opponent does not declare his intentions.
Indeed a very difficult and unique move.I praise his flexible play and his creativity too and I wonder when he will be available for autographs
7. Bf4I believe my dark-squared bishop is at home on this diagonal. It eyes weak squares in the enemy camp such as d6 and c7. Note that a Knight coming to b5 work work great with the bishop. Also not that if bishop rested onto g5, Bxf7 will work with a good position for my opponent.
There was no ...Bxf2 threat on Bg5.
Thank you for your thoughts on my annotation. But that is not quite what I was asking for.
You tell me that there was no Bxf2 threat on 7. Bg5. There is not! Well spotted. I was thinking that if I played Bg5 on move 6, there would be that tactic. But still, I was correct in thinking that my bishop belonged on f4.
Have you anything to say about the moves played on the board, or are you waiting for a strong player's anlaysis before you sum up the negatives and critique me like last time?
Comments on my annotation don't count 
Today I played a game on chess.com's live server. The time controls were 30/0. After the game I analyzed the game without the aid of a computer. Comments/suggestions appreciated.