Sneegurd wrote:
What would you have done as move 7+?
From your starting point above, you have a number of options. Here's my train of thought:
My black stone has only 2 liberties, it wants more. "a" or "c" would serve that purpose. White has a cutting point at "d." Let's keep an eye on that. Then I would probably play "a" because it puts more pressure on the weaker stone, the one closest to the edge. My stones then have 4 liberties, and now he has a cutting point, and I don't.
I basically wouldn't have considered playing "b" at all, because it doesn't help my liberty problem as well as just extending (note that in your diagram, your 3 stones have 4 liberties, which is worse than 2 stones having 4 liberties), and it leaves white with a forcing move - (assuming as TChan mentioned that I value the marked stone). BTW, in your diagram, the marked stone is not exactly doing nothing; it has created two cutting points.
Also, I have never heard the term "anchor" in a go context, but it's a word worth thinking about. An anchor is heavy and keeps you in one place. Heavy and immobile are not desirable properties for your stones.
edit: While I didn't consider Loons' b or c below (and loons is stronger than me), I did consider my "d," but forgot to mention it. This move is called a crosscut, and is a great way to get a nasty fight started. If you have some stones nearby, you will generally have an advantage in the ensuing fight. If you don't have support, crosscutting is often a good way to establish a position in an enemy-controlled area.
.
is what got you into this bad situation. Lesson two: whether it's worth saving the stone in atari depends on the situation on the rest of the board.
is probably at least as bad as 
a move at d would have been more reasonable. It encroaches on the corner without putting yourself in danger. You still have all of your liberties and can move in several directions. If he plays c for example, you can play e and then you will be the one with a comfortable number of liberties.