Oh, there's Bd5+ but then Rxd5 and the knight is still threatening Nxe7+, so white is good there also

Hahahahaha. Fantastic quote I saw in the profile of a guy I'm playing on ICC:

"Some games you're the artist, some games you're the canvas."

Turns out I was the canvas. Piece safety and endgames. Piece safety and endgames. Piece safety and endgames. The two most important things a player my level can work on, and this is why:

http://www.chessvideos.tv/chess-game...r.php?id=43664

Kyle, Be2 isn't active enough in your above game. You have to fight for the critical square d5 with Bf1-c4. Look up this variation.

I saw that was the recommended line afterwards. Passivity is always a problem with me.

So simply be more active.

Then I drop material.

Better than hiding in a shell :P

a3 is a bit slow as well imo. The dragon/accelerated dragon often become races so more active moves are good.

stop dropping material

But then I play too passively.

Nothing really wrong with 7.Be2, 8.a3 doesn't make sense though. Why oh whyyy a3 8.0-0 d5 is easy for Black, so White's best is probably 8.Nb3, likely to transpose into a 6.Be2 Dragon after 8.-d6.

This comment and all the others are well-appreciated and I'll definitely try to apply them, but they are bandaids on papercuts compared to the bleeding, mortal wounds of tactical failures and thoughtlessly botching a drawable endgame.

What has been said already applies ... a3 does nothing & the Dragon, whether it is accelerated or not, is an opening where one tempo can be vital.
Where were you planning to put your king? If you were planning on putting it on the kingside, then why not 8.0-0? If you're looking to castle queenside, then a3 simply creates a hook & invites a later b5-b4.
Also in the endgame you need to worry about preventing your opponent's play. You can push your a-pawn at any stage when you have a free move, but allowing f5-f4 in the endgame is horrible for you.
Also, is there a need for 51.Bxf2? Do you have to sacrifice the bishop here? Can't you play Ke2 & hold & retain your extra piece?

Definitely. Those were the two big failures of the endgame. I got settled into "My only chance is to push the a-pawn so why bother calculating," which is bad, and then I'm not even sure why I played Bxf2. Ke2 definitely holds the draw.

Im going to play a tournament with 20 minutes of time control next week, any tips for this time control?

Move fast

Im used to playing 5 mins games, 20 is uber slow to me

Play most of the game like you do your blitz games but slow way down for 3 or 4 critical moves.

In that case, you will probably adapt easily to your extra time. But I find keeping patience when your opponent goes into a long think can be hard.

Would you rather:

Play every conceivable opening to theoretical perfection through 12 moves.

or

Play every endgame of six pieces or less to theoretical perfection.

Why are you only thinking about a draw?? You're up a rook in that position & can potentially sacrifice the bishop for his two most advanced pawns ... and the pawns are not easy to defend when you need to use a king or a bishop ... I'd almost go so far to say it should be winning!

I'd rather play every endgame of six pieces or less to theoretical perfection ainec.

A good number of really important (and sharp) opening lines practically begin at move 12.

Playing 6 piece or less endgames like a machine would pick up a lot of extra half points.

How many extra opening moves would it require to change your answer?

(not going anywhere with this, just idly wondering)

I think the endgames would be more valuable in terms of improving your overall score, but I'd rather be able to play theoretically perfect openings personally. My reason is simply that tablebases exist, and therefore computers can already play six piece endgames perfectly, so having that ability myself wouldn't be a unique skill to the world of chess. No human OR machine can come even CLOSE to playing openings perfectly though, not even for four or five moves, much less twelve. So even though it probably wouldn't help me as much in terms of winning games, I'd much prefer to be able to do that.

I'm not so sure that the endings would be more valuable. Every game has an opening, but not every game has an ending, much less a 6 piece ending, much less one where knowing best play would change the outcome.