OTB Tournament Game Analysis for Critique

The tactics that ultimately decided the game were overloading and removing the defender of the backward c7 pawn. Black needed to anticipate this one move sooner with 16...Qd8 or 16...a5 instead of 16...Bg7??. I did run a computer analysis on this game, those two moves and the blunder annotation is from the engine. In the future I'll run the engine after posting my analysis.

I was off-book after 6...b6 and believe I claimed an advantage out of the opening.

After reviewing with the computer, I see that my biggest mistake was trading my good bishop for an inferior piece, black's knight. I also gave him the bishop pair by doing this trade. I believe I made this choice because I wasn't striving for the maximum result, was excessively cautious and was deferent to my opponent. The bishop was clearly better placed on e3 and I see with the engine that 13.Nd5 was a stronger move. 13.Nd5 puts the knight on an outpost square with tempo on the queen, practically forcing black to trade knights, giving me two center pawns that make his light-squared bishop bite on granite. Alternatively, he could trade his light-squared bishop for my knight and I would have the bishop pair. 13...Qd6 would be the only other move, and I would feel quite happy with the position. 14.Bxf6 reduced my advantage and gave black drawing chances.

I entered the game into a lichess study and ran an engine analysis on it. I couldn't resist looking at where it said I made an inaccurate move and a mistake and where it said my opponent blundered. I didn't look at it after that, while I was annotating the game with my exact thoughts from the chess club tonight. After reviewing where I left opening preparation, what tactic ultimately decided the game and one mistake I made, I documented my mistakes à la Pump Up Your Rating. I documented that I made mistakes in the following categories: incorrect piece placement, incorrect piece exchanges, excessive caution, releasing the tension and deference to the opponent.

I would be very grateful for honest feedback and opinions on my game and analysis. What mistakes have I made? What have I missed? Any comments are very much appreciated.

@1
You played well, your opponent less so, you won.
You learn more from a game you lost than from a game you won.

"You learn more from a game you lost than from a game you won."

People say this a lot, but it's not necessarily true. If you deeply analyze your won games, you will discover all kinds of instructive mistakes, and missed opportunities for both sides that you never imagined during the game.

Most people analyze their losses because they want to know where they went wrong, so that it won't happen again. But they analyze wins to show themselves how clever they were, and how dumb their opponents were.. But if you analyze your wins with the same attitude as when you look at your losses, because you want to find out what was REALLY going on, you can get just as much value from that analysis

But you learn something, still. By your logic, I should not analyze any of my past four tournament games because I did not lose any of them! 

This is bad advice.  If you do not learn something from a game you won, you either played a perfect game, or you are being lazy.  You should learn something from almost every game (win, lose, or draw)!

I'm not up to date on my KID theory, but instead of 9. h3, did you consider 9. Rd1?  Eventually he needs to play either c5 or e5 to break in the center, which would allow you to play d5 and make his light-squared bishop look silly.  Something like this:

It seems like White is doing quite well here.

Thanks for the reply and ideas.

I didn't consider 9.Rd1 because I was so focused on getting my bishop out - by means of h3 and Be3 - to connect my rooks. Bringing the rook to d1 and then closing that file with d5 also feels unnatural to me. I have trouble realizing where rooks are best placed when there are no open or semi-open files and when it doesn't look like one will be created in the near future in a position.

Looking at it now, I suppose the idea of Rd1 would be to stop black from getting control of the center with e5 because the rook pins the knight/pawn to the queen.

That's a nice line. Looks like black is playing for Ne5 and white is giving them a hard time with the bishop on g5.

The idea behind Rd1 is actually a bit more long term.  If Black plays Ne5 at some point and White is prepared to recapture on it twice, the d5-pawn becomes a protected passer that is supported by the rook.  It is also a bit of a "useful waiting move" to force Black to show his hand.