In Part 1, GM Kuljasevic laid down the groundwork for a discussion of opposite-colored bishops endgames. In the current article, he examines somewhat more complex examples of such endgames. In order to understand the complicated endings which are dealt with in this issue, you can make use of the basic guidelines that were listed in the previous issue.
In the introduction to the current article, GM Kuljasevic puts these important principles in a nutshell:
I have mostly picked examples where the stronger side tries to win based on the principle of two weaknesses. In other words, it already has an outside passed pawn (the first weakness), but in order to win, it has to create and take advantage of the second weakness, usually a weak pawn on the other flank. Penetration of the king is often the guiding idea for the stronger side, and the defender does everything in his power to prevent it. In some of these examples, you will see that it can be difficult for the weaker side to calculate or judge which pawns to exchange and which to leave on the board; whether to defend passively or actively, etc. Despite their drawish tendencies, it is not easy to defend endgames with opposite-colored bishops accurately in practice.
The article consists of 4 extensively annotated games and 5 test positions. Below, you can find one of the examples: