1.Your first game. Your opponent played a ridiculous opening. I personally would have played d4 much sooner than you did, and I would have started exchanging pawns as soon as I could (you were much more developed). That said your development was passive, and the fianchetto of the dark squared bishop made no sense with pawns on e4 and d5. C4 was a good idea, but in the position it was an error.
2. Your second game. 1. e3 is rarely seen for a reason. 1. e4 is simply much better, it hits the centre and gains space. That said you managed some pretty good looking development in this game.
I won't bother analysing the third game.
I wanted to have these 3 games analyzed cuz I was on top of my game and I wanted to see what your opinion of my "playing style" and hopefully get a good analysis of me playing at my best. I have tough skin, so be brutal and make me better. Thanks.
Game 1: I played this today and someone around 300 pts higher than me challenged me so I accepted. Here is how I won...
Game 2: Another game from awhile back. This guy was also ranked around 300 pts higher than me and he made some mistakes but I played one of my best games and he was never able to catch up... (im playing as white, i forgot to label)
Game 3: This opponent was ranked around the same as me and as you will see I played a miserable opening, but I remember thinking that I can still win this game, and I did. Lets take a look....
Thank you for reading and thank you in advance for any replies!!