I'm not a sicilian expert and my comments likely sucks, but they can give you some ideas i hope.
wow, grazie Signor Bresando. you actually broke down the game for me to understand it a lot better.
I am quite familiar with Fischer playing Bc4 - Bb3 in many of his Sicilian set up, but Bc4 normally comes only in around move 7 onwards. What I often see in live chess though is Bc4 followed by Qf3, perhaps trying for a quick mate.
I know that one of the popular reply against the Dragon is the Yugoslav attack where as you mentioned, W will castle long and try to remove B fianchettoed bishop. My opening repertoire though is mostly based on variation I have learnt (or rather memorize) hence I am not so sure the significance of any other variation.
Didn't realize that 7 ... b6 was weak too. I've read that the idea with Sicilian is to create imbalance and challenge W d-pawn, but perhaps in this game I thought maybe controlling the d4 square would be an idea, since W didn't push his d-pawn early for exchange like normal Sicilian that I've played.
As for my 8 ... Bb7, I made the move not because I saw the tactical opportunity my opponent could create, but simply because I was keen on developing my pieces early. Thank you for pointing out that I would have lost my rook had my opponent spotted the chance.
As for my opponent idea on b-file, maybe he was thinking of stopping my pawn advance with doubled rooks, but it looks like I can refute it simply with chaining my pawns and supporting them with rook. Or perhaps my opponent meant he should have doubled on b-file sooner.
Once again, thank you very much :D
Here is the computer analysis from chess.com for your reference. The amount of variation is still too dizzying for me when I read it. Your annotation certainly helps a lot.
I'm happy you liked my annotations. I'm also relieved that the computer confirmed my evaluation of b6?, I feared I was missing something!
On the whole i think you played stronger than your rating, the game contains only little miscalculations and blunders (i can't say the same about most of my own games 
) Only remember to open some lines in the opening!
You shouldn't care much about computer evaluations if not to spot blunders, I think that many of the "inaccuracies" in the final moves are just ok. Also in this sort of very closed position computers are not on their favourite ground.
Well quite recently my rating is improving, but my strategic planning needs a lot refining. My tactical trainer rating is around 100-200 higher than my online and live chess if it is any indication.
This game was one in which I wanted to see how I fare in closed position. I am also trying out the Italian Game nowadays (I will still wield King's Gambit here and there to satisfy my desire for open lines and sacrifices).
Do you have any advice on how to deal with closed position? I was thinking perhaps I should have kept my N in the game, since N works better in closed position than B.
Wow, more help is coming. Why thank you very much, mr. Clouseau731, even your username indicates your fondness of closed position, or is it?
Your annotation certainly clear some clouds on the confusing principle of 'liberating pawn advance' I often sees in game annotations in top level plays.
Didn't see the possible Queenside counterplay you pointed out in move 14 ... a6. I was so focused in freeing my Kingside fianchettoed bishop then. I thought with 14 ... f5 and 15. e6 or 15. exf4 Bxf4, my dark-square bishop would then control the long diagonal. I was not aware that d5 pawn is potentially weak.
Thank you for pointing out about the pawn structure issue. I read before that the direction of the pawn chain should show where counterplay can begin. However in the game I obviously didn't know that locking my Queenside with 16 ... a5 could be so detrimental.
So much I can learn here, and I am very glad for your comments.
Once again, thank you very much :D
