Alright Warb, here was my strategy. Hopefully you are able to replay the game as well with software or something, because it would be easier to follow my train of thought.
In the beginning, I was playing strategically, not tactically. As black, one has the inherent slight disadvantage of a more defensive game, especially at higher levels. White gets to set the tone and pace a bit in the beginning. And since I knew I had that vulnerability next to my king, I wanted to get him safely castled as quickly as possible, and preferably on queen side. Obviously king side is almost always preferable, but with that missing pawn, king side remained vulnerable, so I figured queen side was better.
By turn 8, my king was safer in the corner, and you had my knight pinned with your bishop, with my queen as the important piece behind. I figured it would be better to remove the pin early to prevent complications down the road, and since I'm usually willing to trade knights for bishops (the latter tend to be more valuable as the board frees up, while the former are better in the early, cramped parts of the game), I was okay with forcing a trade. However, I recaptured your bishop with my pawn instead of queen. I can't remember exactly why I did this, but I think it may have been because one shouldn't usually develop the queen too early, and I wanted to keep her protected till later.
That said, you began making effective use of your knight, placing him among my own pieces, but with his effective reach. I was forced to either remove your knight or move my queen, and I figured again that I wouldn't mind a trade of my bishop for your knight, since we'd already done the reverse just before. And I was ultimately hoping for a king-side attack on h2 with my queen supported by my black-square bishop, so I gave up my white-square bishop more freely.
Then I made a serious error, one that you could have exploited far more: I moved my king to b8. I'm not even sure why anymore. I think I was afraid that you were going to eventually take advantage of the white-square diagonal and attack my king, so I was simply moving him early to "safety" in a position I thought was similar to the king-side castle. Then I immediately realized that it was an error, and I wanted to take it back, but I didn't think it was fair to do so. You trading the bishop for knight was wise, as it opened up the defense I'd worked so hard to create for my king. I now had a pawn undefended by fellow pawns and my king sitting on an open file. Meanwhile, your queen needed to make only a single move to check the king, which might have allowed an extra move to reposition for another strike...if only my queen and bishop weren't guarding the right square. But I knew I couldn't leave her there forever, so this position really made me nervous, and I thought I just threw the whole game right there.
We both advanced our d pawns. My hope was to threaten your queen with my rook as we captured each others' pawns. It was a nother simple pin, but I thought I could win a pawn out of it, and maybe improve my position with a more aggressive setup. Rooks are vulnerable on a crowded board with their limited mobility, but the middle was freeing up quick, and if I could control it with my rook, it would limit your queens abilities to harass me.
I then thought that perhaps I could take advantage of the open file on king-side with my queen backed up by my rook. I suspected I could break through, as it is pretty easy to defend that sort of attack, but if I put pressure there, I might be able to divert your resources and perhaps find an exchange where I'd win material. My bishop was still guarding the all-important black square I didn't want your queen to move to. But then you scootched her over one square, now able to attack my vulnerable king by using the white square diagonal to get there.
You of course chose to defend against my pending assault rather than simply move to an attacking square, which was best of course. You moved your knight to defend the g2 pawn and preserve your pawn line there. But if I could effectively remove the knight, I'd then be able to take advantage of my queen-rook lineup. I captured your d4 pawn with mine on turn 17, guessing that you'd counter with your pawn, which I'd then retake with my rook, gaining a pawn and attacking the critical knight. If all didn't go well, I'd still maintain control of the center. But instead of giving me this advantage, you moved your rook to d1. I still had gained a pawn so far, but I wanted to keep my rook and not further damage my pawn structure in another trade. So instead I moved my bishop, still hoping to evict your knight from the h4 square. If you simply moved it, I'd checkmate you. If not, I still might win the knight. You captured my d4 pawn with your rook.
I used the discovered attack against your knight by advancing my pawn, while still baiting you with my rook. If you took it, I knew I could come out ahead in the exchange, either by getting your knight or by mate. You took my rook, I imagine expecting me to recapture with my pawn and even the exchange. But I captured the knight, threatening mate on the next move if you didn't take action. You moved your g pawn forward one.
Now here's where I became more and more tactical in my fight. Your pawn move prevented me from battering through to you with the queen and rook, but obviously because of your king's placement, you could not legally take my bishop. So I was free now to get your rook with my pawn. Now though I remained behind one pawn from the initial handicap, I was a piece ahead.
Knowing your disadvantage with your king's placement, you moved him to h1. But bear in mind in future games that the corner is where you can be mated most easily. Even though you could legally capture the bishop, such would be suicide, as you'd have opened up that vital file and allowed me to place my queen on f2, mating you. I left the bishop there, hoping you might make such an error. Of course you did not. But then I saw that there were other pins on your pawns I could make. I placed my queen on g4, knowing that a move to h3 could threaten your rook and prevent you from capturing anything at g3 with your h2 pawn, a potential future attack I'd hoped for. But more importantly, if I could go to the other side and attack your king from f3 or e4, I knew I could force you to move your king to the important (to me) f file, or even trick you to moving your rook that file. While there was an advantage for you to do so, meaning that if you captured my bishop on the h file, you'd have your rook guarding the square you were worried about on g2.
I left my bishop there, deliberately hoping you'd ultimately take it, as I knew this would be your undoing. At his point it really was no longer illegal, and you thought you had the right squares defended. But what you didn't realize was that time was now working against you. Your king now had only one square it could move to, and I could attack it with my queen. Taking my bishop would give me enough time to maneuver my pieces to the proper spots. I couldn't mate you immediately with the queen because you could safely block with your rook. I needed a second piece to still attack your king. So my rook, no longer needed for my original battering ram type attack with the queen, nor needed to pin your pawn, was placed on e8. I was still nervous though that you might make better use of your queen. You could have moved her to squares that might have prevented my attack, or at least made it more difficult. That is why I left that tempting forbidden fruit, my bishop, just waiting for Eve to take a bite. And since you did, your queen in a harmless position, I covered your only escape route with my queen. Since you could only block with the rook, I sent my rook to e1, safe from your queen, unblockable by your now pinned rook.
I hope this was useful. I was able to win your knight by taking advantage of a pinned pawn. But aside from this, you should have made better use of your queen. Look at our pawn structures on turn 20 or 21. You had a much better defense than I did. You could have sent me running to hide and gained a more favorable position. Next time try to play to little strengths like that.
I'd be interested to hear any of your thoughts on this commentary. It's not Bobby Fischer, just me. But if it's useful, it might strengthen your game. Another? Same handicap?