When was I officially screwed?

Hi. I recently finished one of the most one-sided matches of my entire chess career (hint: I was not the victor). Materialwise, it was even unil my opponent made one critical move that absolutely destroyed me; tactics-wise, I believe I was lost before I even began.

I have looked over the posisition a few times now. I have determined when the game officially and undeniably spiraled out of control for me (move ... 21), but I have a feeling that my fate my have been sealed even sooner than that. Chess.com, I call upon the wisdom of your Chess experts to help me confirm or deny this.

Before I display the game, I would like to show my optimal opening position in order to help you understand why I played the first moves in the way that I did:

 This is my custom opening. It was inspired by the French Defense, and I invaribly use it regardless of piece color. I am aware that such devotion to one opening is considered a weakness, but I have spent months trying to perfect this opening, as it adheres perfectly to my play style. As such, I'm really prepared to try a completely different opening, which I would have no idea how to play.

Anyway, I have kept you waiting long enough. This is the game:

If anyone has any comments as to how such a blatant loss could have been prevented, feel free to respond. I welcome all feedback (though I may take some advice with a grain of salt is you are being particuarly rude or harsh).

I'm not going to try and talk you out of your custom opening but try the opening courses here and see if maybe they convince you to try something a bit more orthodox.

http://www.chess.com/blog/webmaster/free-chess-mentor-courses

Hm, I'd say right around move 7.  Having already lost the center, you need a better plan than "in a couple moves I'll be able to camp a knight on b3".  9. Bd2 is very weak: the bishop is completely blocked in (and the e3 pawn isn't going anywhere for a while).   You dilly-dally like this until move 12, and now look at the board:  your kingside knight is on a very weak square, your dark bishop is still stuck, your queen is stuck, your white bishop isn't pointing anywhere very useful.  Yes you've connected your rooks, but the center is closed and you have a space disadvantage, so that won't help you much.  

The opening is not about building some perfect fortress.  It's about positioning yourself to take advantage of opportunities.  You've basically turned your back on your opponent in this game, it's no surprise he's put himself in a perfect position by move 13 to start kicking you where it hurts.

By the way, if 24. Kxh2,

...Nxf1 wins the queen (it's another fork), and you're toast.  Still, you're right that  this would have been a better move: taking his rook slows him down (just barely).

I wish I had the time to give you more advice...

Basically, your whole system is aiming to play e4! At some point in time, your e pawn has to go to e4. If he blocks you up on the crucial e4 square, you're dead. You were offically screwed IMHO when he played e4.

Hi mario149--the problem with a one-size-fits-all opening is that it doesn't exist; it might work against novice opponents who don't know how to take advantage, but you'll soon face experienced players who easily target its weaknesses.  You started off with a kind of Colle System 2.0 here, but 2...Nc6 was already your cue to think, "Hm.  My opponent blocked his c-pawn in a d-pawn opening; if he can't play ...e5, he's strangled."  That would've pointed you to Nf3 or even f4 before ...e5, establishing a stonewall.  Nb3 didn't achieve anything--that was a dead part of the board and you only sent a piece that way because you'd decided beforehand that it was the right thing to do.  Your thoughts needed to be on playing c4 as soon as possible to break up black's center and give your c1 bishop some life.  By move 12 you had the Hedgehog's diseased cousin, with all your pieces on ranks 2-3 and still no sign of c4 to push back against black's space advantage.  Your pieces moved backwards instead of forward, your opponent eagerly helped you, and you landed in the uniquely unfortunate situation of having them all on ranks 1-2 by move 20.  The rest doesn't need much comment.

Having a pet opening is great, but there's no magical middlegame position that's going to win every time.  Let go of those dreams, painful as it may be, and start playing the board in front of you rather than a sequence of ideas that worked in some other game.  Your rationale for a move should never be, "This is going to bring me towards that position I like so much because I've won a bunch of times with it."  It should be, "This is a human who thinks in words and makes mistakes; what's right or wrong with what he just did, and how can I best take advantage of that?"  Let that guide you and even if you never see your magical opening setup again, you'll start winning a lot more games.

Dear pentiumjs,

First, let me thank you for this long and in-depth response.

I understand what you are saying... or at least, I think I do. I'll admit, in most games I never really focous on what my opponent is doing, for one simple reason: I can never figure out what exactly my opponent IS doing.

I've tried adapting my opening to refelect my opponents before, but it's never worked because I don't understand why my opponent does what he does when he does it. I can't tell if a move is "good" or "bad" until after I play it. My biggest problem of all is that I cannot for the life of me tell what my opponent is thinking. I could clock hours on an analysis board and get nowhere, simply because I don't know what to look for. This is especially true whenever I try to attack; I'll carefully plan it out and look for every possible reasonable response to that attack, sometimes proving that I can win against 10 different responses, only to watch my opponent play response #11; the ONE response I missed, the ONE response That undermines my entire plan, and it usually takes them all of 5 minutes to find it.

I believe that that is the number one reason that I play the way I do. I have to have my pieces curled up in a defensive ball, or they get picked off. I have to wait for my opponent to attack, because if I attack first I will inevitably fail.

So, I ask you, how I fix this? How do I SEE?

Start with the basics.  Make sure you understand forks, pins, skewers, discoveries, etc.  Look for any pieces that aren't defended.  Look for weak squares--ones where a piece can't be driven out easily if it lands there.  Look at space, development, and pawn structure--unless the game is perfectly symmetrical, your opponent has weaknesses that you don't.  If you can't find any weaknesses at all, use your pawns to create them.  That's the job of pawns in the middlegame, to trade themselves off and allow your pieces to invade.  Make sure they're out in front and let them lead the way.  Think about the game above: your opponent's main aggression was with pawns.  ...e5-e4, ...a5-a4, ...b6-b5, and so on.  The pieces only came into play once you'd created those holes.  On the other hand, not one of your pawns crossed the 5th rank the entire time.  30 moves and not a single breach into your opponent's half of the board.  That's why you were doomed to shuffle your pieces around passively until you lost.  Remember that the further your pawns make it, the more breathing room you have for the stuff behind them.  Learn to push--you'll overextend yourself and lose a few games, but with enough practice it'll suddenly all make sense.

A good strategy is to learn the game backwards.  Start with endgame exercises so you understand mating patterns, then converting advantages (like, K + 3 pawns vs K + 2 pawns).  Gradually work your way backward to more complicated midgame scenarios, until you can look at a crowded board and say with confidence which side is winning and why.  (Again, look at this game around move 12.  Who is winning?) Then and only then can you really understand openings.

  You may never know exactly what your opponent is thinking.  You don't need to.   I guarantee he'll make mistakes,  your job is to spot them and take advantage, while avoiding doing anything too stupid of your own.  (It's impossible to be perfect.  You'll make mistakes and sometimes your opponent will punish you for it.  That's how you'll learn.)

As pentiumjs has been explaining, going into a huddle is almost always a mistake.  Chess is a game of war, and allowing your opponent total freedom of action is not a winning strategy unless your opponent is a major fool.

Finding a balance between keeping your opponent off-guard and keeping your own guard up is not easy, but you are way, way, way out of balance in this game.  

who won? or is that a draw?