Why 27. Rdh1? I'd play Nxf6+. You threatened it, he ignored it, so play it.
Secondly, you could've expanded in the center faster than you did. When you own the center like that, and I mean dominating it, you should think of nothing else but driving those pawns up to the 5th or 6th rank and sticking pieces behind it.
Trading off the dark-square bishops is fine in this position. True, it was your good bishop, but it was also his good defender of the kingside. With a king castled underneath a fianchettoed bishop, that bishop becomes a priority if you're playing for mate. Also, consider that the center was by no means settled. It was totally fluid. That bishop was "good" only temporarily. After you traded it, you just played e3-e4 and presto! The other one was good again. With mobile pawns, there are no good and bad bishops.
Sparta wrote:
Hmm that's an odd transposition into the King's Gambit from the Bird. Any particular reason why you didn't simply take the e-pawn?
Actually, it's one of the main variations for Bird players who are scared of From's Gambit (i.e, f4 e5 ef d6 ed Bxd6).
Personally, I feel the From's is unsound and should be defeated as is. However, many players worry about the ridiculous complications that can arise, more from the Mestel From's than the Lasker, which baffle even chess computers.