I realy don't like the use of polls this way, Hoember.  I won't delete it but I hope you won't post such a poll again.

Otherwise, many of your posts are very interesting!

I have noticed that my moves are more cautious when I don't regard a draw as a catastrophic outcome. This must have something to do with me better scoring against 2200-2399 players compared to 2000-2199 ones. 
I have also noticed that my results have been strikingly better as the first player, but this doesn't yet reflect my recent choice of defenses (which can be seen in my signature). I was alternating a lot of "junk defenses", almost game by game.  

I am telling a secret now by sharing that I am happy when in a game I can show tactical wizards that material and structure really do count. I think I like a lot of so-called "dull positions" and I often find the opponent's zugzwang more amusing than a win after wild tactics. (It is _not time_ which is the most important factor for me.)

I rarely read middlegame/endgame books but I play through as many games--till the last move--as I can when studying opening books. I circle the moves I don't understand and later give them to Rybka. I can only afford to participate in few tournaments but I think it is because of this method that when playing against FMs, I often reach comfortable positons after the opening.

I am easily distracted and most of the lost points is due to that fact. I have difficulties when it comes to tense positions, partly because that needs real concentration. But I am often able to steer the game into calmer territories where the emphazis shifts to some structural advantage, better piece placement, etc, where even better tacticians can be defeated. (At least, this often happens at "under-IM" level.)

I have learned not to immediately seek to punish my opponent after an opening move that has a bad reputation. I try not to take the move as an insult (it was not easy for a long time, seriously), but instead I say to myself, well, it is just another move, probably not the strongest one, but it wouldn't be the end of the world if I lost from here. All this has a relaxing effect on my play, I don't get too emotional.

Well, I hope I have written something that can be useful for some other players as well.



TN: I shouldn't have mentioned Rybka, I think. I am expecting futher comments from you. (And from others, of course.)

4.a4. 
Yes, you are right. I spot this plan at once when I replayed the game at home. I don't know why I didn't play that way... It would have been an easy advantage.
Maybe because before my eyes was floating a Schmid Benoni position from a nice win by Dreev from 2006 
( http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1410164 )
that I looked through just hours before my game. (1.d4 Nf6 2.Nf3 c5 3.d5 b5 4.Bg5 Qb6 5.Nc3, when after a ..b5b4 the horse goes to a4 attacking the queen and then comes b2b3, Na4b2-c4, according to the included analyzis.) 
As you pointed out, in my game it was an even better position for White than after 2..Nf6, so there was an opportunity for an even more straightforward initiative.

6.h3. 
I like space advantage and restrain the opponent's pieces. Sometimes it hits back, when after a while, in very tense positions (a lot of pieces still on the board) I would just have to make the decisive move to finish off the cramped opponent but I can't calculate precisely.
With the inclusion of b5 and a6, I didn't see where the c8B could be of much use to Black, who was already a little cramped, in the long run if he didn't try exchanging it for my knight. I felt the bishop is useful attacking on the f1-a6 diagonal, while the f3N could head for c4 later. (or something like that, as in the more normal Schmid Benoni positions, when there is no early b7-b5 as happened in the game) 
I don't know if this logic is more appropriate than what you gave. But this is what was going on my mind.

9.Re1 with Bf1.
I have the book Benoni Systems by Raetsky & Chetverik (2005). I had played through a few games in which the rook went to e1 and then the bishop to f1, that's why I played that way. I felt I had every time in the world. Black's formation was comfortable to develop against.

13.Nxe5.
Rybka3 also likes (gives) 13.Nxe5 dxe5 14.a4 for White (as happened in the game) and, after 14..b4, evaluates it as "+= (0.40) Depth:18".
After 13.Nd2 (which it evaluates as being only equal), during the game I had the feeling that it would be not so advantageous to play for f2-f4. I didn't know exactly why. I had the feeling that the plan with my h3-h2B-e1R vs. his piece formation didn't promise much for me. His bishop also could have gone to h6 anytime, blocking f4, for example. And I liked the idea of shutting down the a1-h8 diagonal immediately: another e-pawn, which can be a target, a bishop that is blocked by that pawn, and I can take an f4N anytime. (I had just spent long minutes calculating what could have happened after 12..b4 13.Na4 Qa5 14.c3.) While with a closed a1-h8 diagonal I can play for a2-a4 and no dangerous b5-b4 can attack my knight and b2P simultaneuosly.

I also have the feeling that it would have been hard to win if I had had to win. I was in a favorable situation--I think he would only have accepted a draw if he had foreseen some forced line leading to his defeat... (As happened against another 2300+, months earlier. He was "-+ (5.something)", that is, already being destroyed, when he offered a draw just before a forced tactical shot.) 
I wasn't playing for a win, I was just trying to kill off the opponent's initiative before it started and place my pieces on better places with every move, and "let's see what he has". That kind of play is what I love the best and this time the opponent was a good partner in practising it. 
Interesingly enough, I have better results against 2200-2399 opponents than against 2000-2199 opponents. The latter often get in a number of suspicious moves, and play even more inferior positions, when I simply can't choose from the promising plans. I lose quite a few "+/-" positions that way.

I am looking forward to your return and comments, which are inspiring.

Thanks for your attention.

Today I defeated a 2347-FM, who had scored 7 out of 7 against 2200-2300 (among them some FMs) opponents in the previous rounds.
Here is the game. (for now, without comments or analyzis included)

This has been only the 2nd defeat out of his last 19 games, in the half of which he played against "2300+"-opponents (many FMs), so I was very happy about this victory. (He rarely gets defeated.) 
According to statistics I would have had no chance at all against the best scorer and board#1-player of the best team (today was the last round and they came in 1st). But last summer I only lost to him with my erroneous 47th move, made in time trouble, in a pawn-ending that was objectively a draw, which had given me some hope.
So, this is still a game which demonstrates how I do _not_ get outplayed.  (How I _do_ get outplayed will come later. For the time being, I am busy _collecting_ and _commenting_ the worst games, which will be posted _here_.)

Please mention some virtues of White's play.  (I have never had a coach, so I am curious.)

----------------------------
I remember one of my opponents after the last round of a nightmare swiss open weekend tournament with my 0 point out of 4 games saying after his victory over me, "You didn't do anything." I rarely get comments about my play, so I still remember that. He forget to mention that in the game I stood much better for a long time (about 0.98 according to Rybka3), but then I collapsed and he went on to win.
So, another question is, do I really not do anything in my games?
----------------------------

PS.: In the meantime I have _finally found_, and I hope I won't write down these words ever again, the favorite black defenses (see my signature) which I just started to study.  (I hope they suit my undescribed style.)

This is my topic.

I opened a similar one months ago,
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1229978003/15
but then someone started to ask questions there and people started to mistake me for him. Nevertheless, if I could change the title of that topic, I wouldn't need this one.

So, this is where I'd like to post the games of mine in which I got busted. 
Can I find an FM+ player who is willing to give me advice about the mistakes (in middlegame plans, tactic, endings, etc)?

About me. I play at club level, by which I mean playing mainly in team championships and apart from that having only about 15-20 OTB games a year. (Not too many.) My opponents are between 1900 and 2300, usually.
Too bad, I can't play more games a year, which makes it very slow to reach a 2200-level in terms of FIDE rating, which I already could be at only if I didn't participate in the unfortunate tournament years ago in which I got a low initial rating. (So, now you are a 2000-player, while you can just smile at the wrong middlegame plans and opening deficiencies of a bunch of 2100-2200-players.)

As Black, I have taken up the Slav proper ("4..dxc4 5.a4 Bf5"), the French, "1.c4 c6", and "1.Nf3 d5".
It is a brand new choice of repertoire, to date hardly tried in OTB games. Earlier I played everything, recently 1..d6.

I regard myself more of a strategical than tactical player. I like to first build my position, placing my pieces at good places, and outplay the opponent in a slower manner, by making his position worse and worse (by posing structural deficiencies, space disadvantage, etc on him). It feels like heaven when my opponent is virtually in zugzwang in the middlegame, which is often the case.

Sometimes I wonder that being only a club player, whether it is worth spending time on these highly theoretical defences, like the Slav or French. (Maybe 1..d6 or the Nimzo/Bogo + Caro-Kann would be a better choice?)
But then I persuade myself, why not, you have to play them and suffer defeats as well because of lacking knowledge of some variation, but one day you will master them, understand them more than your opponents. And I have spent a lot of time organizing my study material at that.
I am right, aren't I?

Also, as White (1.d4), I don't fancy studying "sideline" openings, like Colle, Trompowsky, and other d-pawn openings--I usually go for "mainlines". And I have spent tremendous amount of time (and money) getting (and printing) study material on them at that.
I am on the right path, aren't I?
Well, I have never had a coach or someone watching my "chess career", thus having trustful knowledge of me, that's why I am asking these questions here.