The concept of swapping off a rook for the dark-squared bishop when black has played for a king's fianchetto set-up is not a new one. Remember that although rook+pawn are classically thought to be worth twice what a bishop is worth, rooks don't really do a great deal until the position becomes more open; a bishop dominating a long diagonal however is a formidable resource throughout most of the game. When you have a more fluid appreciation of the piece values, it's easy to see that black actually only wins an easier endgame here, at the price of less chance of reaching it!
That said, it's surprising how many players would have resigned on the spot after losing the rook on a1. This game serves as a good example as to why things are not so black and white as they appear, so thanks for sharing!
This will be my first post!! Here goes.
In this game of mine playing as White, i blundered and lost in an exchange of a rook to a king fianchetto bishop. But as it turns out, the removal of the fianchetto bishop prove to be my benefit, since the dark squares around the black king were severly weakened and allowed a familiar checkmate pattern.
As you can see, while the fianchetto bishop is a strong threat, the threat of lossing the bishop is even greater, ironic isn't it?