Why did I loose this one?

It wasn't a bad game, but it wasn't a good one either. No special moves. Please tell me my bad moves, and the ones I should have played. I was white

I don't understand 16. d4 at all. That Bishop on f6 was locked in behind those pawns, e4 was protected only by d3, and the idea of trading on f6 uncovers the attack of the Rook on the Queen.

Speaking of which, why couldn't Black play 19. ... Rxg2 instead of worrying about that worthless h6 pawn? The threat of ... Rxf2 is not pleasant.

For the same reason, 22. ... Rhg8 a mistake? Unless I'm missing something, you could have played 23. Rxe6 Rxg7 24. Rxf6 when 24. ... Rxg2 allows 25. Rxf7 I guess it wouldn't be so clear after 25. ... Re8 intending 26. ... Re2, but I like the idea of protecting f2, and posting the King on d1 to chase the Rook from e2, giving up the h pawn if necessary, because White could place a Rook on h7, behind Black's h-pawn, and Black could not do the same with respect to White's f-pawn.

It seems like the beginning of the game was marked by your insistence on trading pieces. This is a dangerous policy when it becomes the basis of your strategy. In my opinion, every forceful action you took only helped your opponent.

9. Nxe7 I thought that would of been a nice move. There are some nice clean lines for your bishops to play along. 13.Bxc6 Once again i would of kept this bishop because of the open style game. I think i would of tried pushing the f-pawn rather then the d-pawn, and trying to open a nice file for my rooks. 

Thanks everyone... I sometimes don't know what to play, so I trade pieces. You think that's bad?

@ jconn - you said you don't understand 16... d4. Then what would you play?

It's bad when you're lower on material than your opponent. Imagine if you trade down everything you have; then, your opponent will end up with some material besides his king, while you'll have nothing. Conversely, if you have more material than your opponent, you want to trade away everything. It's called attrition.

In the above game, you were a pawn down after 17. ... Qxe4, and you dropped several other pawns later on (30. b4?, 36. a5?, and 38. c5?). Pawns are important, especially if you trade away all of your higher-valued pieces. With a clear pawn majority, your opponent had no trouble running one of them through.

early on you have a space advantage but swapping off pieces frees up Black. There are times when you should and times when you should not swap off pieces. 9.Ne7 would exchange off Black's bad Bishop which i dont think is good.

20. Rhe1 to contest the open file and push away the Q.

You don't want to swap Q's when it means going into an endgame a pawn down, especially a distant pawn.

Most people hate when I say this, and you can jump on me all you want, but I'm seeing it happen too much not to speak up: "loose" rhymes with "moose".  If you don't win a game, then you "lose" it.  Only one "O" in lose, not two.

 And challenge is spelled c-h-a-l-l-e-n-g-e not c-h-a-l-l-a-n-g-e

One observation is that you did not seem to know how to play in the situation you found yourself in, especially after about move 29. You were a pawn down, which is not insurmountable, but you needed to remove the black passed pawn, and to do that, you needed to get your king into the action. But instead of moving him to where he could help, you kept him off on your queenside, lost another pawn, and eventually the passed pawn(s) defeated you.

Once most of the major pieces (especially the queens) are off the board, the king can function as an offensive piece. He has limitations, but in this kind of game, he has to get into the action.

Understanding this comes with time and experience, and -- unfortunately -- lost games. Black had an advantage, but he was willing to throw it away (as tonydal points out) by pushing his passed pawn too quickly.  Set up the board as it was before move 29, and try some other approaches to winning that pawn back. You may find that can get a draw out of this game.

How do you know who has got the (space) advantage? And what should I work on?

30. b4 and 31. h3 was a serious mistake - even after the first of those, you could have moved your king off the c-file so he couldn't take your c4 pawn with check, and if it's not check you can take his e-pawn. Once he has a pair of connected pawns marching down the centre of the board it's very hard for you to hold the position.

16. d4 gave a pawn away for nothing - at least you should have (not "should of") brought your Rook across from h1 to e1 first.

But you're not going to seriously improve as a player until you start thinking of things to do with your pieces apart from trade them off. At least you should try to make the trades earn you something, even if it's just leaving your enemy's pawns broken up when he has to recapture. It's better though to leave taking pieces until you actually gain something by it. You need to take that step forward - if you can't cope with the idea of having a number of pieces of different movements on the board at once, perhaps checkers is more your game.

It's funny how you all tell what I should't have done (or how do you say that?), but not many say what I should have done instead. I mean, pointing out my mistakes is also helpful, but, you know.... tell me what move was better, too.

@Gil Gandel, you said moves 30 and 31 were bad, but tell me what was I supposed to do. I can't see a good move there.... can you?

And it's not true that each of my games are based on trading of pieces :)

A fine understanding about chess is, that you don't just play "moves". I mean, you do, but behind every move there's a plan - a look into the future.

29... e3 was an error. His pawn is too far advanced, and you can win it. The plan is simple - move your king towards the pawn (Kc2 - Kd3) and take it with the rook. He can't stop that from happening.

I think it's because you let your opponent control the center with their pawns that were mostly passed.

Instead of Nd5, open the position up with d4 since you have a lead in development. You could then follow up with 0-0-0.

I see from your profile that you are new to the site and playing the "welcome" game.  Perhaps you can ask your welcomer to talk you through the game as you are playing it.  He may be willing to tell you a move you just made was an error and why.  If he can't, or won't, I have seen other strong players offer this.  I don't remember who, but perhaps you can post a topic to seek that.

For my personal (very untrained and uneducated) style, I would have traded off more pawns early as opposed to minor pieces.  It seems odd to have a game where the players each have a rook and 6/7 pawns. And when your opponent has a 6 pawn pawn-chain it seems particularly daunting. 

I am also curious why you casteled queen side when the king side available.  Especially when you then stepped your king over to b1 to protect the naked pawn.  I (untrained, mind you) only castle queenside when my king side pawn structure is destroyed or specifically want my rook on d1 to protect or attack a piece.  Naturally, there are other instances to do so, but I default to kingside unless I have a very specific reason. 

I am presuming that you are a beginner (as I consider myself), if not, then my appologies.  It seems to me that a beginner should focus on concepts more than moves.  Someone can tell you the "best" move in any position, but if you don't know why that move is good, then you will never know to make it later. 

A better move 30 would have been Kc2, heading for d3 to take off the e3 pawn as Black can't support it. 

You said earlier on that sometimes you trade pieces because you can't think what else to do, so you can't blame me for commenting on it.

And if people tell you what you did wrong, and you understand why, then you may be a step closer to thinking of better moves for yourself. :)

Better a grammar cop than a looser.

...

*BOOM BOOM TSCHH*

So you did, NM. As a quick perusal of the daily puzzle threads shows, though, people who don't read the whole thread are a dime a dozen hereabouts.