Notes and queries by Dave:
Jim won this game despite the fact that I didnít blunder so much as a pawn.
Jim offered a draw around move 17, which I should have accepted as I didnít really have a clue how to assess the position or to make use of any advantage I may have had, nor any clue how to keep him at bay, even if I had seen any threats he might dream up. I was playing Micawber chess - hoping something would turn up Ė so we were in a in a lottery. If your opponent offers a draw either 1. The team score means a draw is to his advantage [not in this case] or 2. He sees something wicked you might be able to do to him [well, if he could, I couldnít] or 3. he canít see a way forward either.
Lesson 1: if neither of us could see a way forward, then half a bird in the hand would have been better than a bird in the bush, both for self and the team.
The actual game went against me when Jim moved his Bishop from b2 where I had it stuck and useless to a3 where it fired round the back of my central pawns at the heart of my back rank. By moving one square it went from useless to a serious menace. In truth, I was complacent about the Bishop and had stopped looking at what it could do. If I had looked I could have prevented it going to a3 and kept it useless.
Lesson 2: look all over the board all the time; donít just look at what I can do, but also look at what my opponent can do.
I subsequently ran the game through Fritz........Now see Fritz's Analysis