Recipe for an ego boost

Oh, now I see :-)

I know this opening as "the Fred". I would never play it as black, but would really enjoy playing against it as white. 

Too bad at my rating range nobody wants to try that against me...

Incidentally I know your opponent - a very accomplished player, but I'm 4:0 against him (he did win a game from me in Crazyhouse, though),

And now I look at the game and here are my impressions:

Personally I didn't see the need for him to hit on h7 and help you develop...

You develop a really nice position by the time you castle - it's by no means easy to crack...

And after that you play shockingly well. You never give him a chance - and he's a strong master and you were rated <1400. I really can't make head or tail of this. Nobody under 1900 or even 2000 would play with such clarity and insight. 

Even for a 1900-2000 player, your game would stand out in its quality - perhaps I should say impeccable quality.

Please stay away from my threads.

I'm referring to this post, in case he deletes it.

Thanks for the comments!  Yeah, I definitely let the one against @SerBrus get away from me, but (other than the hanging rook which we both missed) I was pretty happy with the game.  I gave a 2000+ player a good scare.

Against Schachmasteo, losing the pawn, I let him remove its defender.  If I remember right, I knew as soon as I made the move that the pawn was gone.  But I just hung on and did the best I could, and he blundered.

You did really well against both of these players. Rad1 was really a first-class move by Schachmasteo - you couldn't answer it by ...cd due to Bxh7+ next (winning the Q). I think that your move, ...Be7, is good - and then recapturing on d5 with the knight and being ready to remain with an isolated pawn on d5. 

Thanks!

Now, if only I could play like that all the time!

If you can play like that some of the time, you will eventually be playing like that (and better) all of the time. 

There was a lovely little draw hidden in the first game in my first post above. We discuss it on another context here (see comment 10, first page)