Where am I blundering?!

My current record is 681 won - 699 lost - so I think I have some idea of my weaknesses. There is a strong pattern that I get clobbered in the end game - because I rarely can figure out the long-term implications of some moves I make in middle game - where I can't figure out whether to move pawn A or B etc. Typically then the other guy runs riot with his rook or knight. Can more experienced players point out obvious blunders in this game? Thanks!

I'm not analyzing deeply or using and engine so I may be making mistakes here, but off the top of my head...

2. d4 is the main move, taking the center right away. The French Defense. Your 2. Nf3 allows Black to transpose to the Sicilian which is what happened here... it doesn't seem like a terrible move, but I do think d4 is stronger.

4. Qxd4 seems very odd. I don't play this line of the Siclian so it might be a thing, but it seems to me your Queen will become a target and 4. Nxd4 which is played in all the Sicilians I'm familiar with would have been stronger. Sure you've moved the piece twice, but it's been moved to a strong position in the center. If Black challenges with Nc6, then you can let Black take the Knight and take back with your Queen, when your Queen will stand well since Black has no more Knight to play to c6 to kick her. If Black on the other hand ever kicks the Knight (or Queen after exchange) with e5 then Black has to deal with a weakness on e6... which Black can sometimes do in the Neighdorf and Sveshnikov which are very sharp... I don't think Black could get away with e5 here, after already playing e6 so wasting a move... I think White would be very good there, so anyway I think 4. Nxd4 is probably the move. I don't know the line; I might be wrong.

7. Nc3 seems probably stronger than Bc3, getting a better hold on the center and not moving the same piece twice before completely development... but Bc3 challenging the fianchetto doesn't look bad either, just a little weird... maybe Nc3 would have been a tiny bit stronger.

Maybe 12. Re1 would have been better than 12. Nb3 which seems to lose you the Bishop pair, although certainly maybe something different somewhere else would have been an even better way to hold onto both Bishops.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to do with 24. e5 besides make your Bishop worse and your opponent's Bishop better.

Now comes the obvious blunder you mentioned 26. Qxb7 seems much stronger than Nxe5. It's not just your play you've got to watch out for. When your opponent blunders you must see it and take advantage of it.

After the exchange of Queens I'm not seeing how you could avoid losing the pawn as happened the game, though maybe there's a way I'm just not seeing and I can't help you there if that's what you're complaining about in the endgame. I'm really not strong in the engames myself... they've just never been terribly interesting to me and I play for fun, not to win, so I don't bother. Hope this helps.

Maybe moving the Bishop somewhere on move 28 could have kept you from losing the pawn. I don't know where is best, though, also obviously you fell for some tactics at the end. You were probably already lost, though. That Bishop had the run of the open position. In general you wanted to keep your Knight closer to your pawns and try to make a blockade. What happened instead was your pieces were off on their own getting skewered and forked... maybe with something like the pawn on f4, the knight on e5 and the rook behind it White could hold... again I'm not great at end games.

I dont like 14. cxb3 because your b pawn Will be weak for the rest of the game.

You have to practise endings, and this one should probably have ended in a draw.

Of course 42. Nc2 was a blunder.

How about 26. Qxb7.

Well possibly 42. Ke2 instead of resigning, though it's still pretty ugly, and I think your opponent could have played the other fork on the board to win a piece on the last move.

One other thing is that the type of opening you choose is often conducive to endgame pawn structure. In other words some openings just tend to leave you with more solid pawn chains. For example 1.d4 usually leaves me with much better endgame pawns after it connects with e3.  Whereas 1.e4 usually leaves me quite disheveled. But this is common knowledge, that e4 can lead to more wild positions than d4.

why Qxd4? why not Nxd4

4.Qxd4
Not terrible, but loses a tempo when he develops his knight so recapturing with you knight is better.

6.Bd2
Ok, so your idea is Bc3.  This isn't terrible, but again it gives a little more ground due to tempo.  In the opening try to develop your pieces as quickly as possible.  Spending 3 moves to develop your 2 queenside minors to inefficient squares is not so good.  I call Nd2 inefficient because it will have to move again (or continue blocking your d file).

This type of mistake is one I see a lot actually.  A player is excited about improving 1 piece, but ignores another.  When choosing development (and in the middlegame where to place pieces) try to pick a home/job for all your minor pieces (bishops and knights).  3 ok pieces are much better than 1 good and 2 bad pieces.

20...Qxb5
The smoke clears and white has an extra pawn.  Give each of your 4 pieces a job / useful home (in other words keep them active) and keep an eye out for tactics and the extra pawn gives you winning chances.  Let me elaborate on piece activity.  A few common examples:

1) The piece attacks a weakness
2) The piece is on an open line (file or diagonal) and so is good in general (has good chances of #1 in the future)
3) The piece occupies a central square and so is good in general (has good chances of #1 in the future)

A piece may have a job of defending a weakness, which is better than nothing, but without 1,2,or3 above it's usually passive defense which is not what you want in chess.

This helps me explain my reasoning better for the next few moves.

21...Rc8
Not your move, but let's ask real quick if this is a good place for his rook?  It's an open file so it's not bad.  21...Ra8 instead is more natural though.

22.d4
Trying to trade when you're ahead.  The down side being it turns your bishop into a passive defender.

22...Qb7
Avoids the trade and has a threat.  Do you see the threat?

The threat is to play d5 and make your bishop forever passive as long as it's on c3 and at the same time tries to gain d5 or e4 as a home for his knight.  (after d5 if you capture he takes on d5 with the knight and if you push e5 the knight gets a home on e4).

For this reason I would have preferred 22.Ra1

23.h3
Misses that d5 is a good move, but creates luft for the king.

23...Nh5
Not your move, but instructive.  A common example of decentralization, hurting his position when he's unsure what to do.  If the knight is going to a new home, then it's good.  If it attacks or defends a weakness, then it's good.  But Nh5 does none of these.

24.e5
So at first this looks bad because black wants his pawns on light squares and your pawn on dark squares (due to the bishops).  Pawns on the same color makes the bishop a worse piece and tends to abandon the other color (here the light squares).

But then I thought, wait, this isn't so bad.  It does decrease his bishop's activity and threatens to trap his knight with g4, pretty good.

But then I see it's bad after all.  It justifies his bad move Nh5 because now black can use those light squares you abandoned (the danger I just mentioned).  Black has Nf4-d5 and his knight has a great home (centralized and attacks c3).

25.Qe4
Trying to trade when you're ahead material by forking his queen and knight, good.

26.Nxe5
Oh no!  You missed the free queen on b7.

27...Nd5
Now the knight has a good home.  Unfortunately he's also winning his pawn back : /

This is a direct result of having active pieces (rook and knight).

28.Nf3
Decentralization.  Not a better square for your knight.  The knight's your best piece!  Improve your rook with Rd1 instead.  The rook is a passive defender.

30.Re3
Hoping for a trade.  Always better than hope is activity.  Rd1 protecting the back rank while planning to go to an open queenside file is better.

32.Re4
Unfortunately forced into passive defense.

33.Ne5
Good square.  Unfortunately black is active enough that he has tactics now.  Black can play Rxd4 and if you recapture then Bxe5 forks your king and rook winning.

36.Nc6
I can understand lashing out but this is a good lesson for many players so it's worth repeating.  Activity is better than hope.  Decentralization for the purpose of hoping he misses the attack on his rook is bad.

Better is improving any other piece.  Rd1, Rd2, Kg1.  Moves like this.

43. Resigns
Understandable.  You could keep playing with the move 43.Ke2 attacking his rook though.

So basically this is a lesson in piece activity... not one piece, or two pieces, but all your pieces all the time.  And it's something you can work on for years.  Always improving or exchanging your worst pieces.  This is a hallmark of strong grandmasters... they never seem to have inactive or passive pieces.

Others will point out the tactics you missed, and that's fine.  Tactics are the most important (you can't improve pieces if you lose them) but this is something to keep in mind as you get better.  It's definitely something all sub-masters can improve.  In fact I didn't play over the game before I started making comments, I just commented as I went.  I knew it would be a theme for the whole game because literally everyone needs to work on this!

28. ??

4. Qd4 is the blunder coz after that white loses a tempo by retreating the queen. There is a reason why 4Nd4 is played usually and that is to centralize the knight.

As wafflemaster pointed out, Black played the wrong fork at the end : 42...Bc5+ (?) 43.Ke2 does not immediately lose a piece (but of course 43...Rg1 is completely winning), unlike 42...Rd2+ !

(though I am annoyed people keep saying the same things I said in the first post as if ignoring my work; I guess I was too wordy and no one is reading it or understanding it, not even the OP?) I have to take a step back and agree with Chessmicky, Motcha, and the OP (about not playing Blitz all the time.) And I don't think it's so much that you need to read books on either this opening or tactics though all that would be helpful. Just a change in process would help the most... have a plan but stop at each move and see all the threats, don't automaticlly recapture if you have a better move and blah blah blah. Slow down if you need to.

It's too obvious why u lose... ur b5 @ 14 was blunder period

I don't know if you include me in that, but just so you know your post wasn't there when I started typing mine.

Yeah, I made some assumptions there, obviously even if the time stamps are right it can take more than an hour to write as good a post as you did, Wafflemaster. Thanks to those who put my complaints in perspective. Good luck, Axeknight.

Wow, the time stamp makes it look like 2 hours, no way did it take that long   I had lots of tabs open so that's part of it.