One of the themes I noted during analysis was the repeated need to decide between reasonable-looking moves that had different trade-offs in terms of their strategic impact. As Black, moves 14 and 19 are examples of this, where I deliberately went for a safe continuation in the first instance, and faced the common "which rook to move?" problem in the latter case. White's decision to make the second bishop for knight exchange on move 11 was more problematic positionally. Other key decisions for him occurred on move 14 and move 20. It's interesting to see how decisions that may seem largely equivalent - for example, recovering a pawn one way rather than another - are not really equal, once other factors are taken into consideration.
I give credit to my opponent for playing pretty accurately after suffering the tactical blow on move 13, so it was not a question of him simply collapsing afterwards. In the end, I believe he missed a key defensive move due to an instinctual desire to avoid a queen exchange, after which I penetrated his king position and won soon afterwards.
