Bishop vs. Knight

A couple of days ago, I started reading Bishop v Knight: the Verdict (1999) by Steve Meyer. Then, I started studying Rosenthal -- Steinitz 1873, the first game in the book. Before the first round of the Inland Empire Open yesterday, I was analyzing this game with some other participants.

The imbalance appeared in my second round game. My opponent was Steve Brendemihl, who is returning to chess after many years away. We last played in 2006 in the Washington Challenger's Cup. I won that game and then we tied for first in the u1700 section.

Yesterday, I had Black. It was a long, complicated game which we both enjoyed.

Brendemihl,Steve (1578) -- Stripes,James (1821) [C03]
Inland Empire Open Spokane (2), 20.05.2023

White's 29th move won a pawn and set up a forcing sequence that led to the endgame imbalance.

Black to move

30...Rd7!?

Perhaps not objectively best, but it disrupts White's plan. Steve identified this move as the decisive moment in the game.

Steve expected 30...Rxa4 31.Rxa4 Rxd5 32.Ne7+ Kf7 33.Nxd5 Bxa4, which struck me as difficult to win. Of course, the game is objectively equal in either case.

31.Rxd7 Bxd7 32.Ne7+ Kf7

White to move

White is ahead a pawn, but Black's pieces are more active. The rook and bishop coordinate well to create threats. Black can win back the pawn easily if that seems best.

33.Nd5 Bc6 34.Ne3 Rf4

I am hoping to win the h-pawn.

35.Nf5 h5

White to move

36.Ne3??

One player's tragedy is another's victory.

36.Nd4 forces a rook ending with an equal number of pawns. 36...hxg4 37.Nxc6 bxc6 38.hxg4 Rxg4+=

With best play, the rook ending should be drawn.

36...Rf3

Threatening the rook on a1

37.gxh5 Rxh3 38.Ng2 Rxh5 39.f3 Bxf3 40.Kf2 Bxg2 41.Kxg2 Rd5 42.b4 Rd2+ 0-1