KnightExemplar wrote:Here's a game I just played...
As an example of something to look out for in terms of pawn structure - notice when you push the pawn on move 13 of this game, that you take the diagonal away from the dark-square bishop. You've restricted your own piece to only three squares out of the entire board, rendering it basically useless unless you spend a move on pushing a pawn, which will give your opponent a tempo unless you can wait to push the pawn with a threat.
In the same vein, you seem quite set on describing the two bishops as an advantage - this is only so in open positions, when there are lots of diagonals open and lots of paths for your bishops to zip around on. In closed positions, a knight is better than a bishop.
I see what you mean about the games being decided by blunders, though. I've found that at my level (which is reasonably close to yours), games can be won by simply making sure that every piece on the board has at least as many defenders as attackers at all times. Don't make a move unless you can defend that piece on that square. If you can do that for every move of the game, eventually you'll weed out opponents who lose games because of simple blunders, by virtue of the fact that they're losing material and you're not.
Edit: they're from a little while ago, but I dug up some old games I played online. This game is probably the best I've ever played, in terms of actually good chess. But, I much prefer this game, for two reasons: one, I'm still really proud of the combination starting around move 20, it seems like it caused my opponent to panic and he was done for not long after; and second, I wrote it up and really enjoyed doing so.
This is my most recent game. If you want to analyse it for practice, feel free. It's not a perfect game on either side, but that just means you get to look for better moves!