I just won a game where the concept of bad bishop is well demonstrated.
The game itself was not good from either part, blunders was made and things would've turnout differently if more time of every individual move would’ve been put.
However here it is:
The opening 1. e4 e6 could turn into French Defense, but didn't. Instead it went into a chase of his pieces, that turnout to be positional fruitful for me.
After my move 5. d5 his bishop went bad and was forced to be inactive for the rest of the game.
After my 11. b4 the queenside pawn structure was fixed and further fixed after the Knight exchange with Ne4+. Both his bishops are stuck and only one with difficulty could be set free. Takes tempi and effort for this.
The future struggle has to be done at the kingside.
He missed that his queen was about to be taken and lost it in the move 21.
At the move 37 I made a check before I protected my queen and so I won a rook of his.
The game ended when he couldn't save his other rook at move 41 and he resigned.
Lessons to be learnt:
Although he had two bishops, one of them he couldn't use, it was closed in by his own pawns. Trade it before it get useless.
He did a series of rook moves as he had no plan. First get a plan, then move the pieces accordingly.
I hope I don't give anyone the impression that he is a bad player, because he isn't. He has a rating 350 below mine and he had a bad start, yet he held out for 40+ moves. This in mind he is a good player with a good future. I think with mine 1465 in rating, some moves I could do far better.