What could I have done better?
Sort:
I was happy that I was able to get the win, but I felt that after the exchange in the middle of the board, that my pieces were uncoordinated and that my opponent played slightly passively. So what could I have done better here? I'm open to any suggestions.
18..... Bf6 wins a pawn and the game
but even after 18...Ndf4 your position didnt look uncoordinated you played fine
Nicely played ... learning the Kan myself and you opened up rather nicely.
You may want to not use the word "exchange" as it refers to a rook for a minor piece recapture (or vice versa). For material that's recaptured "equally" , the word "trade" might be less confusing.
Onto the game,
- 12...Ne5 gives him f3-f4 with tempo or he can tie your knight with Bf4. Was moving your knight to g6 really worth that trouble?
- am not sure taking with the bishop on d5 was accurate as you lose the bishop pair, plus the white bishop looks like he has a future on that diagonal hitting f3/g2.
- 18...Bf6 wins a pawn atleast, I'm guessing.
He did play passive and you had him on the ropes reacting to you on nearly every move. Well done!
played a good game and yea 18 Bf6 would have been a really nice move
@Shivsky: Thanks for the comments. My only thought process behind putting the knight on g6, was that it meant that both my knight were on the kingside, and both of his knights were on his queenside, which in my mind potentially enabled me to have an advantage when attacking on the kingside. In this case though, I think that your right that it was little bit risky if he would have chased after it with the pawn push. It probably would have put me on the defensive.
I am personally a huge fan of the Kan now, mainly because I felt like it was easy to learn, and least as far my feeble chess mind goes, it seems a little more simple to play than some of the other sicilians.
Thanks for the clarification on the definition for 'exchange'.
And everyone here is definitely right about 18. Bf6, I definitely missed that one.