my game,

in what ways could it perhaps, have been more perfected? it actually seemed kind of scary around move 13.. it seemed as if i was throwing my bishops around the board; losing move after move retreating could there have been a cordinated attack of somesort?

and yes, after kd8 things would be challenging..

i was actually thinking knight a3 protecting that square; however it looked quite passive. but, so was taking my bishop all the way back.

I am no expert, but I'll point some things out that I noticed.

13.  Bd3 is a much better way of protecting the pawn than 13. Bd1

15.  Bh5+ seemed unnecessary

31.  Bd1+ wins the bishop.

You did a good job of attacking your opponent's weaknesses during the game, but he helped you out most of the time by ignoring those attacks.

3.Nf3 isn't a blunder, exactly, but 3.Bd3 looks better: You develop a piece and prepare castling, but you don't give up a pawn! And you get to play Nf3! whacking his Queen with a gain of time on your next turn.

Doesn't 3. Bd3 lose the d-pawn?

Bd1+.. Wow i missed that discovered check.

 No cause if he takes your bishop bakc with Kxg4 its a forced mate so Bd1+ did more worse then good.

Don't feel bad too bad, the line you played was correct: forcing mate > winning a bishop *edit -- oh I see PaulGottlieb already pointed this out*

HAHA agreed

Wow, I wasn't very clear when I pointed out 31. Bd1+, haha.  What I should have said was that while in this case taking his bishop is better because it wins it in an extra turn, it is just nice to point out this kind of thing so if he sees this similar situation later on where retaking the bishop is good (or "not  bad") for the opponent, he'll play something like Bd1+.  It was the concept I was trying to point out.