Bishop endgame with isolated pawn - is Black winning?

 I am looking at the following position from one of my games and I don't see a way for White to save this. Black will transfer the king to d5, play f6-f5, put bishop on f6 and then go for pawn breaks c7-c5 and h5-h4-h3. With the Black pawn on h3, all kinds of sacrifices on f4 or g3 should be decisive. Move by move, white does not even have time to play h2-h4. Am I missing anything?

I tried it with the help of a computer engine and didn't get anywhere as black. If the black king can get to d5, the white king can get to d3 and once he's there, there is no way for the black bishop to break through. Meanwhile, white's bishop kills time by moving back and forth.

Just a quick glance at this, and considering similar positions covered by Beliavsky and Dvoretsky, I think Black is very close to winning. 

White's problem isn't just the d-pawn, it's all the pawns are on the wrong color. I expect that Black can indeed win this.

@ peepchuy for background - I care about this position from the analytical point of view. Black had a choice to trade from a position with 2 bishops into this, and I want to understand if this bishop endgame was the cleanest way to win this.

    NONSENSE!  No, ChessFanNM, Black wants NO part of h2-h4 that will guarantee his loss.  He wants to get his Kingside pawns either traded off or all on White squares . . . h3 is a far stronger move!

    The whole idea of endgame play is NOT to take a popularity poll, but rather to generate a forcing strategic line of play that nets Black or White a win; OR where one side has the apparent win, to allow the "disadvantaged" side to draw.  Black has a better position because his pawns all work together and in a same-colored Bishop endgame some of his pawns are on good squares.  Generally in books like Pawn Power and Point-Count Chess an isolani like White's on d4 is really considered to be a drawback and Pawn Power suggested that isolated pawns are often truly only worth 1/2 pawn* -- but each position is potentially different.  Anyway at a negative (-1/2) Pawn for White . . . Black has the material advantage. Nevertheless it's drawish!  If White exchanges off all the Kingside Pawns; or exchanges his isolani for a Black pawn  -- no way Black wins.  So White Pawn moves like h3 and/or d5, (if he can get away with making them without negative consequence) could give Black lots of problems . . . so, IF Black can stop BOTH of them OR just as good IF he can remove their sting, he should gain the upperhand easily -- but his King is NOT particularly well placed  -- so again Drawish. So BLACK's big advantage is the move!!!  That first MOVE for Black must be accurate!  So let's say Black stops d5 with Ke6, I would play as White:  f3 . . .  expecting Kd4 and meeting it with Ke3 . . . NOW, I do NOT expect White wants to initiate a blanket trade of pawns, but rather to create a passer with minimal trade of pawns . . . so . . . .

*  Pawn Power also talked about "monsters" three or four pawns on the same file for one player.  Back thirty years ago when I was a good player (1936 rating before going two dozen years without playing chess) one of my favorite games was where I drew a master in a Team Chess competition with Loveland, I think, by making two sacrifices to give him a four-pawn monster.  But such games are rare and this one will NOT turn into that kind of battle.

The last time I entered into this kind of discussion . . .

http://chess.com/forum/view/endgames/can-black-win7

I got a lot of insults for bringing up the notion of a half/Pawn . . . but testing it out over the board after 13-14 pages of really ugly guff from a few of the more trollish kibitzers, I was able to draw a position against a player rated at least 375 points higher than I am because his three isolated pawns (two doubled up) which I rated as equal to 1.5 points actually proved to be totally worthless  = 0  OUCH!  In this position the d5 Pawn has some strength unlike that one!

My analysis had just gone along the lines of what pfren says. White seemed to be just one move short to transfer the bishop to e3 and play h2-h4. On a1-h8 diagonal the bishop is vulnerable to zuzwang and c7-c5 (c3 is the only safe square) when Black has bishop on f6.

      Five of Swords, why would White just give away his d-Pawn?  Please, you must read carefully, I said that IF he could make f3 and d5 without negative consequences, his game would be very annoying for Black.  

    Heck, he might even win . . . but why give away the isolani?

     CoffehCat, White wants his pawns on White Squares NOT BLack ones (or to just trade them off), so 1... g52. fxg5 is the best help Black can give him.

Of course I could be wrong here, but I doubt it. I believe that too often in the type of situation found here and in the other forum linked above that I got involved in-- too many people get lazy and rely on generalities they've heard or read somewhere rather than actually examining the defensive resources like the three I believe I see in White's favor here.

Nice! I do wish Pfren had saved the original comment, which at least made sense. The original comment read "Black has nothing at all". Which means that Black has no realistic winning chances. By switching the word to "white",  all you've done is highlight that you made a significant change of opinion. 

This position is very similar to Averbakh-Veresov (notes by Dvoretsky):

5oS changed his mind. But instead of acknowledging this, he just went back and retro-edited his comment.

5 of Swords' line was interesting, but I'm contending that White does best by keeping the isolani on the board and using his Bishop as a BIG PAWN to also pressure Black from a distance. I think White trading his d- PAWN for the Black c-pawn is his best shot at a draw (or if Black gets too ambitious -- possibly his best chance to win) but l can be convinced otherwise with compelling analysis. : )

Congrats! By copying and pasting my post, people now give 5oS credit for posting Dvoretsky's analysis. 

A1Rajjpuut wrote:

5 of Swords' line was interesting, but I'm contending that White does best by keeping the isolani on the board and using his Bishop as a BIG PAWN to also pressure Black from a distance. I think White trading his d- PAWN for the Black c-pawn is his best shot at a draw (or if Black gets too ambitious -- possibly his best chance to win) but l can be convinced otherwise with compelling analysis. : ) in this line I believe that instead of "sacrificing" the isolani by d5+,White does best with Ke3

That is . . . 1. ... Ke6. 2. h3. f5. 3. Ke3

I call it "sacrificing the isolani" because I think White's d-Pawn is worth 1.5 - 2 points in this position since it and the King working together are pretty formidable in maintaining the center "user-unfriendly" territory for Black.

SmyslovFan -- some great comments, but don't get petty: none of us is responsible for anyone's uninformed opinions except our own, right? As to your comment about 1. ... Ke6 2. h3 Kd5 and "" White may safely resign" HorseshiPP!!! Ke3 holds all-- But IF it does NOT, postponing h3 until after Ke3 and even Kd3 is a solid response to the original forum post -- a solid "White" holds strong comment.

This is Chess, not politics. You saying it's so, means nothing. In the case of your pretense not to understand my returning the discussion to the original forum issue. I said that White probably would even do better to postpone h3 until after Ke3 IF Black begins 1. ... Ke6, care to put it to the test??

black would have good winning chances with or without extra pawn. Maybe even down a pawn or two

Phren fails to put his skill to the test. After 1. ... Ke6 either 2. Ke4 or Ke3 keeps the very slim White advantage. Ah well, no gonads and no guts and no curiosity are ever found in Neanderthakl politician. It's drawn UNLESS Black tries to win, then he loses. White has no such opportunity to go wrong as all his earliest efforts.are forced.

Black is winning, I had a similar position last year and these position not really easy to win.