Not sure where things went wrong

I am a 1300ish player, and as such I make a lot of mistakes and lose a lot of games. Usually by the midgame I pretty much know where I stand in a game (winning, losing, even).

What bothered me about this game was that after the moves between 15 and 18 I felt like I was in a good position to win the game. I felt that with his nonexistent pawn structure I was at least even ... probably better.

However, as you can see, things quickly turned ugly for me.

I'm hoping that people here can either explain to me how/why my position wasn't as good as I thought after 18, or what I did to mess it up.

Thanks,

Evan

you were a piece down after 10 moves, and a rook down after 18. i doubt we really needed to tell you when you had a lost position

I had felt that my lost rook compared to his lost bishop, pawn, and all isolated (one passed, yes) pawns that I wasn't that bad off at 18.

Right in the opening: 3. Nc3 is pretty odd here. Nf3 is far more common, intending e3 & Bxc4 and preventing e5.

3. e4 is a sharp modern continuation.

You were playing inaccuracies way before 18. Read up more on the QGA for stronger responses. Your opponent let you back into the game for a brief moment, by playing even worst. You need to know the strategy behind the Queen's Gambit, and how to play it positionally.

Thank you very much .. as I said, I "thought" I was doing well, but I guess not nearly as well as I thought.

I appreciate the information.

Evan

It looks to me like the e4 pawn-thrust was a little early.

that seemed a normal 1300ish wild game.  with both sides making less then contemporary moves try and treat each move, each and every move like a tactics trainer puzzle.   With such an open board I'd say rarely is a bishop a good exchange for a rook.  Gl