Originally posted by robbie carrobie
I go into the end game with a material advantage and a bishop v a knight with pawns on both sides of the board. I have a preponderance of good Kingside pawns v weak and isolated pawns and its annoying as all get out to lose it.
I was black.
You say: I go into the end game with a material advantage and a bishop v a knight with pawns on both sides of the board. I have a preponderance of good Kingside pawns v weak and isolated pawns.
Clearly this assessment is wrong. The extra pawn is shaky as c4 is two King moves from attack and if the Bishop protects then it will be harassed by the knight. In correspondence conditions this is calculable if you want to make the effort. Even if some kingside distraction manages to save the pawn the queening square is the wrong colour for the bishop so it is more of a liability than an advantage.
The key danger, as you found out, was the dynamic possibility of creating a passed pawn on the queen-side available to White.
I won't go as far as to say this endgame is lost for Black but its a lot more difficult to play than the position a few moves previous with the Rooks on.
I have faced players over the board who play quietly and aim to get that a+b pawn vs a pawn queen-side pawn majority fairly early in the game. They then exchange all the pieces except a bishop or something and win trivially it is so strong. Once you have lost to it once you might remember when you see it in the pawns and then you have to kick, bite and scream to stop it happening again.