That’s an interesting thought. I’m sure there would be others who would also provide material. I know that the late John Osness had a lot of old chess memorabilia that he passed along to the Iowa State Chess Association at one time. I’ll mention that concept to some of ‘the powers that be’ in the current Iowa State Chess Association.
Here’s another interesting example of the bishop versus knight interplay, again also involving rooks. This was a last round game that garnered me a share of first place - my recollection is that this was also Gary Walters’ first USCF rated tournament, and he performed admirably, scoring 3-2 and acheving a five-game performance rating of around 1800. Small world!
White: Randy Bauer (2200) - Black: Kari Hoijarvi (2130)
Leavenworth (Kansas) Open 5-15-94
King’s Indian Attack
1.g3 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Bg2 e6 4.0-0 Be7 5.d3 0-0 6.Nbd2 c5 7.e4
We now have the ubiquitous King’s Indian Attack, which can arise from a variety of openings, including 1.e4 e6 or 1.e4 c5 as well as with 1.Nf3 or 1.g3. I’ve often found this a useful weapon when less theoretically prepared or unsure of my opponent’s openings predilections.
7…dxe4
I don’t think that ceding the center is Black’s best approach. My opponent didn’t want to allow the stock kingside attacking schemes based on e4-e5 for White; Black’s idea allows him to post his knight on the strong d5 square in response to e5.
8.dxe4 Nc6 9.Re1
This is a constructive waiting move by White, who posts the rook on a central file and removes problems associated with …Ba6. White will likely play c3, move the queen, and then play Nc4 or Nf1. There are, of course, other ways to set up White’s pieces.
9…e5
Black reasons that he can afford the tempo loss (e7-e6-e5) because White has placed his rook on e1. When Black has his pawn on e5 a typical strategy for White (or Black, in similar King’s Indian Defense positions) would be to play for f2-f4, but that idea would be better with the rook still on f1.
However, Black’s move creates a major structural imbalance: Black has allowed a serious hole on d5, which a knight can settle into, while Black’s natural knight outpost, d4, can be contested by a White pawn on c3. White decides that this imbalance is important enough to center his play around.
10.c3 h6
Black would like to play 10…Be6, which prevents 11.Nc4, but 11.Ng5 is useful for White, since 11…Bg4 12.Bf3 offers to trade Black’s good bishop for White’s bad one (notice the White and Black pawn structure–a key for determining the effectiveness of a bishop. In this position, the e4 pawn hampers White’s light squared bishop, while the c5 and e5 pawns limit Black’s dark squared bishop), or 12.f3 Bd7 13.f4 gets White’s kingside play started with tempo…
11.Nc4!
I think that Black thought this move unplayable, since 11…Qxd1 12.Rxd1 leaves the e4 pawn unprotected. In fact, this exchange is good for White, since 12…Nxe4 13.Nfxe5 Nxe5 14.Nxe5 gives White a clear lead in development and a strong bishop on the h1-a8 diagonal.
11…Qxd1 12.Rxd1 Bg4 13.h3?!
This “wins” White the two bishops, but it may not do so in the most efficient manner. I think better was 13.Re1. Why, you say, would White want to leave the open d-file for the blocked e-file? The primary reason is that White cannot easily hold the d-file, since …Rfd8 will contest it at a time when connecting the rooks, with Be3, robs the Nc4 of its natural post.
White’s key idea, after all, is to occupy d5 with his knight. The Re1 is actually well placed to help with this, since if Black responds …Nxd5, White’s exd5 will simultaneously expose the pawn on e5 to attack. This is a common theme in Black positions resulting from the King’s Indian and Pirc Defenses. This also helps explain why it’s often useful to study structures that can be utilized for both White and Black.
13…Bxf3 14.Bxf3
So White has won the two bishops, but his light squared bishop is, at the moment, not the greatest of pieces. White’s plan must be to finish his development while improving the outlook for his bishops. At the same time, his Nc4 has a ready-made home on d5. Since Black has a knight controlling that square, White must always reckon with the resulting exchange: would the passed d5 pawn be a strength or weakness? That depends on the placement of the other pieces and pawns, but both sides must take it into consideration as they make their plans.
14…Rfd8
Black logically contests the d-file before White has a chance to smoothly connect his rooks. White’s “logical” developing move, 15.Be3, takes away the White knight’s best square. I envision putting the bishop on b2 or a3, keeping e3 clear. 15.Be3 b5 starts pushing White’s pieces back.
15.Rxd8+
White isn’t thrilled about giving up the open file, but he reasons that the bishops can control the squares on the file and allow White to eventually play Kf1-e2 and Rd1 if necessary. As noted above, 15.Re1 may be just as good, although in that case White is a tempo down on the note to move 13.
15…Rxd8 16.Ne3 b5
Black logically contests the c4 square and envisions c5-c4, which frees his dark squared bishop and restricts White’s light squared bishop as well as artificially “isolating” a White pawn should an exchange on d5 occur. Black is playing actively, but his advanced queenside pawns can also become targets. That’s the two-edged sword inherent in such advances, and, in the end, it helps White by giving his bishops something to shoot at.
17.Nd5
Is this advance good or bad? White believes that it is good because it dissolves the “ram” pawns (e4 vs. e5, a blocked type of structure that generally helps a knight in a battle with a bishop), which increases the scope of the light squared bishop and, in this particular circumstance, forces the Black Nc6, after an exchange, to a less central location.
17…Nxd5 18.exd5 Na5!?
Black recognizes that c4 is a critical square, and the knight keeps Black’s grip on it while preventing a2-a4. On the other hand, the knight is somewhat unstable on the edge of the board, and it creates some tactical possibilities involving the advance d5-d6, as we shall see.
19.b3!
White decides that he should deny the Black knight any possibility of effectively going to c4 while also keeping his pawns flexible. If Black plays c5-c4, White may choose to answer b3-b4 followed by a2-a4. With the pawn on b2, Black can capture en passant. White also wants to make it difficult for Black to play his knight to d6, where it would control all the important central light squares, making it more than a match for the White light squared bishop. This would be an example of a well-placed knight neutralizing the two bishops.
19…Bg5?
Black starts on a misguided plan. 19…Nb7 comes into consideration, although 20.Be3 calls Black back to the defense of his own weakened queenside pawns, and White will follow up with a4 with a queenside initiative.
Black’s most combative plan would be to blunt the light squared bishop (and thus threaten the d5 pawn) with …f5 and …e4. The game gets very interesting after 19…f5!
Then 20.Be3! (20.g4? e4 21.Bg2 Rxd5 22.gxf5 Rd1+ or 21.Be2 a6 looks good for Black) e4 21.Be2 a6. Now if 22.Rd1, Black gets his counter play going with either 22…Bd6 or 22…g5, with good chances (note how the bishops are blunted).
There are more promising tries for White. 22.g4!? could lead to an interesting pawn sacrifice, since 22…Rxd5 23.gxf5 Rxf5 24.Rd1! opens up the position nicely for White’s pieces. The other alternative is 22.c4, when 22…bxc4 23.Bxc4 threatens the discovered check and the a6 pawn, but 23…Nxc4 24.bxc4 leads to a tough endgame that I think somewhat favors White. Black can take the b-file (and if he doesn’t White will) with 24…Rb8, but 25.Bf4! is a problem since 25…Rb4? 26.Bc7! motorizes the d pawn.
20.Ba3!
White has no interest in exchanging off Black’s bad bishop. Instead, White uses tactical tricks to open the position for his bishops. Thus 20…Nb7 21.d6! Nxd6 22.Bxc5 makes both bishops powerful. Similarly, 20…Be7 21.d6! Bxd6 22.Rd1 and Black has problems because his knight is stuck on the edge of the board – definitely no match for White’s bishop. This is the type of transformation of the position that White seeks and Black must avoid.
20…c4 21.Bb4
White wants to make the exchange on c4, but he wants to leave Black with a weak pawn there, not the dominating knight, so he chases it away.
21…Nb7 22.bxc4 bxc4 23.Be2 Rxd5
Black might have done better to toss in …a5 here or on his previous move. In the game the pawn on a7 becomes weak (and lost), and this would have given some additional opportunities to defend the pawn. On the other hand, the pawn on a5 would also be subject to attack.
24.Bxc4
White has brokered his passed d5 pawn into an open position for his two bishops (and passed c-pawn). This concept, of trading one advantage for another, is very important in chess. It is a rare game where one side obtains one type of small advantage and shepherds it all the way to victory. More common is to make a series of “transactions” that change one type of advantage into another type. Now White must make his two bishops work. Since the position is open, that seems possible.
24…Rd2
The game has passed through a transition from a semi-blocked game to an open one. Often the critical point in such a transition is the first move or two by both sides. Before deciding to make a transition, it is important to work to envision the new position and determine if there are any forcing moves that suddenly give one side or the other the edge. It’s amazing how often a player will submit to a major change because they miss a one or two move cruncher at the end that completely changes the game’s complexion.
In this case, 24…Rd2 was the key move I examined when playing 23.Be2. While it appears active, it takes the rook away from the possible defense of the a-pawn.
25.Ba6!
Attacks the knight and restricts the a7 pawn. The bishops start making their presence felt. Black must also be aware of the possibility of White quickly advancing the c4 pawn.
25…Nd6
25…Nd8 26.Bc5 Nc6 27.Bb5 leads to the same type of problem for Black—the light squared bishop cannot be challenged.
26.Bc5(?)
The culmination of White’s plan, I played this move quickly. If I had spent more time (although I didn’t have a whole lot left to get to the time control at move 30), I might have played 26.c4! I looked at something like 26.c4 Rd4!? 27.Bc5 Rd3 28.Bxa7? Ra3 and decided that the line was too risky, but 28.a4 should be sufficient. While Black has some tactical chances after 26.c4, White’s bishops can harass and dominate the opposing knight, and Black’s pieces are clumsily placed.
26…Ne4 27.Bxa7 Nxc3 28.a4
Obvious but strong. The passed pawn must be pushed! Note how the long-range bishops, even from the a-file hinterlands, control key kingside squares, preventing Black from putting together an attack.
28…Ne2+?
Black decides to exchange one of the bishops, but it leads to a technically won endgame. One of the advantages of the two bishops is that one of the bishops can be exchanged off while still preserving opportunities for the advantage. This is such a case. The remaining White bishop, in connection with a rook behind the passed a-pawn, can bring it to promotion. Black would do better to keep the knight on the board, with 28…Nd5, which affords opportunities to interfere with White’s straightforward plan of pushing the a-pawn.
29.Bxe2 Rxe2 30.a5 e4 31.a6 Bf6 32.Ra4
A key point about passed rook pawns: they’re very hard on minor pieces, because they only allow the minor piece one side of the board from which to defend against their advance. In this case, with the White bishop controlling the a7-g1 diagonal and the a7-b8 diagonal, Black’s bishop cannot help stop the pawn.
32…Rb2
Black hopes for 33.Bd4 Rb8 34.a7 Ra8 when White must still work for the victory. Black dreams about 33.Rxe4??, which allows 33…Ra2! Remember that rooks belong behind passed pawns – there’s absolutely no reason for White to abandon his a6 gold mine for the fool’s gold on e4.
Note also that 32…Rd2 33.Bb8! prevents the Black rook from stopping the pawn.
33.Bb6! 1-0
Since 33…Rxb6 34.a7 forces a new queen, White relishes the poetic justice of the game concluding with a bishop move.
After resigning, my European opponent said that I didn’t play like an American; rather, he said, I played this game “like a Russian.” I took that as a compliment!
That’s “H-o-i-j-a-r-v-i”.
“USCF Forums: Leave No Nit Unpicked.” 
Consider that nit corrected - thanks!
I remembered some names: Adam Robinson, and Richard Rostrom.
Oh my goodness, Chess is being discussed 
WTG, Randy!