Thank you for your insight.

Being more specific, in the game itself, I thought about playing g6, and I eventually did, so I guess that I understood why g6 was necessary. I couldn't see so much of an issue with my choice. I got nervous, but I felt like I should try something slightly more aggressive, which obviously, three moves later I realized it was pointless. I was scared of his knight on f5 and I thought that my best option was to at least create some pressure by centralizing and coordinating both of my knights. His light square bishop wasn't fully active yet, so I could deal with a little pressure on g7. The computer later showed what I was instinctively scared of - Bg5, that kicks my queen far away from the fight. He would have ended up with two bishops in a open position, not to mention his very safe king as oppose to my very exposed king. That's why I wanted to hold on to my dark square bishop.

The computer says that my position was ok up the to 19th move and that g6 would have just made things even harder for white. While in the game, I thought about it, I saw why, but I thought I should at least try to be aggressive.

I mean, you are an excellent player, do you think that in the game you'd have taken advantage of 19... Nfd7 right away? I'm truly interested, because I feel like I would not have seen such a quiet, but strong move. And this what I wonder about. I took a very big risk, sure, but sometimes, unless you're playing a computer, don't these risks pay off? How can I broaden my perception regarding strategy when I can't barely understand why those quiet moves work? I might be asking the wrong question, I understand, but it feels like you could help to clear this mess in my head better than I can do it myself.