A few comments:
The sequence 9-18 does not look like a good strategy. Locally the B corner is perhaps comparable in value to the white wall, but more globally, the B stone at R10 has been significantly devalued.
strikes me as an overplay, asking for trouble. Your two stones on top are too big to sacrifice, even if you get the corner in compensation. So it makes more sense to stabilize these stones first, then wait for an opportunity to invade the corner. If W uses an extra move to secure the corner, so be it.
is exactly the same, asking for trouble again. I think it would be more prudent to stabilize the left side group instead. This is particularly important, given the other unsettled B group above, opening possibilities for a W double attack. After the sequence to
the four B stones on the bottom are more of a liability than an asset.
is a golden opportunity to solve some of B problems. Why connect these two worthless stones? Cut at K2 and secure one group right away.
The exchange 61-62 shows that B is still not worried, despite now having three weak groups!
Not much comment on the rest of the middle game fighting, except a few notes:
at b6 would be a good whole board strategy -- force this B group to run, in order to consolidate UL territory while attacking. I think B would be in trouble.
is ugly, e14 is better.
and
are small.
:w106: was sharp, game winner.
:w152: was small, :b153: much larger.
:w160: to :b163: helped B.
:w166: to :b169: was a blunder, permitting the cut at L5.
with the idea to attack the white k3 stone, but that didn't turn out right.
: I tried something new and I didn't know what I was doing.
