Bad Bishop vs Good Knight

One of my first losses at www.chess.com was when I got in an endgame where I had a bad bishop, and my opponent had a good knight.  Usually, you want a bishop over a knight in the endgame, but not when the bishop can't help with attack or defense, then the knight is the better piece.  On top of that, I maneuvered my rook into a confined space and couldn't get out, while my opponent used his rook to attack my weak queenside pawns.  So, the the combination of his active rook and active knight to my lousy bishop and confined rook led to a loss.  Click on move list to see more annotations.

Interesting game. I guess the moral of the story is to watch out where you place your bishops when the endgame gets near. Thanks for sharing, Bill.

Yes, I thought I was winning until I found out my bishop was going nowhere, no attacking chances, and could not activate my rook. 

Why not 7. Qxg4? I don't see how that capture could possible be detrimental, other than losing a tempo as you undevelop your queen after having it chased away.

7.Qxg4 Bxd4 8.Be3 is what I thought about and have it in my notes (click on Move List), but thought 7.f3 was better, but should have played 8.Bg5 instead of 8.Be3 as a follow-up.

Instructive game on the topic. Mr Wall, thanks for highlighting it -- I did download your 'bill wall's complete games' pgn the day after you put it up but I haven't yet come down to studying the games --

now I think: maybe in chronological order would be more educational because --

now I think: there is *chess* to be learnt from seeing the development of a player's chess ability...

reminds me -

for an example of the generalisation of this - pieces 'look' developed but they are not in harmony with one another; will trip over one another:

see introductory position of Andrew Soltis's book 'the art of defense in chess'

oh, poor rook,,,

Always a pleasure to look at your games Bill Wall! 

I think you got yourself into hot-water with following up the tactical 34. Rg5 with 35.Rh5?! ... he makes effective counters and your rook ends up in a cage...  He played it well.

I don't understand 36.e5 though... he didn't bite with 36....Nxf4, but I think I would have.  Are there some tactics after Nxf4? What did you and N. Sullivan see there that i don't?

After 34.Rg5, I really didn't have a follow-up.  35. Rg3 Ra4 and 35.Rf5+ Kg7 and 36...Rb3 loses the pawns of the queenside. 

36.e5 doesn't seem to work either and Black could play 36...NXf4 37.exd6 exd6 38.Rh4 Nd3+ 39.Kg2 Rb3 or 39.Bxd3 Rxd3.  I think Black was worried about the minor piece exchange and was focused on pinning my bishop and getting behind my b-pawn.

WHAT??? Billwall how could you lose? I still remember your game against me, how good you are. I had convinced myself you were the invincible reincarnation of the God of Chess.