No reason to bother with this entire game as my opponent let it get out of hand somewhere around move 100. I'm mainly concerned with how I handled the fuseki, especially in regard to my invasion at move W29. It seemed to me that I had no choice but to invade his sphere of influence being mounted in the top left, however, it got me into some trouble in the bottom right that a stronger player would have most certainly exploited.

Why high? Generally, I think it's inferior to the low approach. I'm not actually familiar enough with the situation where it is good, though, so I may be mistaken. Still, the question "why this approach instead of the other" is something you should think about.

I'm going to go out on a slightly facetious limb and say that there is no case when approaching high is "good" as such, there are only cases where the small knight's approach is bad.

As more general (and serious) advice, 2 stone handicap games are barely handicap games. You should approach them as if you're playing an even game, play the best moves you can find, and just trust that your opponent will make slow moves, etc. to allow you to catch up by the time the game is in late endgame. Being greedy or trying to be too fast will just get you into trouble, because your opponent can see through most of your ploys.

Hey, I'm sure I would become stronger if I learned to recognize where the small knight's approach was bad . This make me think of a thought I had about high/low approach : given that the 4-4 is more oriented toward influence, playing the high approach, means you will be competing from the same thing, but with your opponent having the advantage of the first move in this corner. Meanwhile, a low approach, more oriented toward territory, make it easier to get an equal result. Is my theory sound, or am I way off mark?

So there's been talk about the high approach at W11. I played here because I wanted to set up a wall to influence the area below it. Though the Q12 stone was played as a response, I knew that conflict in this area would be inevitable. Therefore, I chose to allow black to take a large corner in exchange for the influence needed to kill what would later be the Q12 group. This was the primary reason for the placement of the invasion at L16. I did think of destroying black's base, however, what good would it do if he still has the corner? The L16 stone was placed to look like it was putting pressure on the F17 wall, only to mask my plan of continuing a wall from L16 to Q15. Though my opponent didn't respond where I had hoped, he still gave me the opportunity to connect and then attack Q12. Seeing as all of this went according to plan (including the death of the attacked group), what was wrong with the high approach? Personally, I generally prefer to approach high just because I don't like making territorial moves so early in the game. Who care's about early points when you can get a fighting advantage? As has been demonstrated, black had an easy escape from my attacking stones, however, what was it about my strategy that was inferior?

It is not like the high approach is a horrible move that turns the whole game in your opponent's favor. It is just that it is sub-optimal. Assuming optimal play from both players after a high approach, you give more than you get.