This game is a perfect example of 2 bishops vs a knight and bishop and where the strengths of each lie. My opponent traded off the major pieces in succession, rook, rook, Queen but didn’t consider how the minor piece endgame would be. They had two doubled isolated c pawns and a weak isolated a file pawn. Our game starts in one of my favorite variations of the Nimzo-Indian Defense.
Both sides have a solid setup. White has a good center, Black hasn’t committed to a center break and keeps some flexibility. Most times Bxc3 is played and White ends up with the two bishops but a slightly weakened structure.
Black’s idea with this setup is to push the e pawn forward after Re8 and if possible continue to push through to e4. The position is equal here and there is plenty of dynamism for both sides to play for the win.
White has made a mistake putting the bishop on b2, the c3 pawn isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. I get the break I’m looking for and the ideal position I am comfortable with. From here it’s White turn to decide how to proceed. The best moves are Nd2, Rfe1. Not incredibly intuitive moves to play. Nd2 attacks the e4 square not allowing me to push any further. Rfe1 looks to support the file once all the tension breaks.
The tension in the center breaks and d file opens, White looks to trade off the rooks and Queens which I oblige as I notice how weak the c and a file pawns are. The end game will surely favor a N+B instead of 2 bishops.
In the position above it becomes apparent what my plan is. White’s bishops are tied to c3 and a4 which leaves my knight to hop around and poke at other weakness along with my King.
In the end the power of the two bishop was rendered ineffective because of the weaknesses and lack of open diagonals for them to exploit.
