Ah, I see now 17.Qd8 18.g4 fails to Re8 followed by Nd6-e4. I don't know why you couldn't have told me that before when I asked, but anyway I honestly was very sure I was right and not scared to play you. I can admit when I'm wrong though. My apologies. I was somewhat lucky.
Sorry I didn't see that you were recommending g4. I also just assumed that you realized that the point of Qd8 was ...Re8 and your queen will have almost no squares. After 18. g4, 18...f6 19. Qf4 g5 wins the knight.
My game against Glaurung continued in a similar way: 18. Qf4 Nd6 19. Rhc1 Ne4+ 20. Ke1 Re8 21. Kf1 g5. The bishop is definitely doing work covering the kingside light squares.
Also @ Nytik: It is far more difficult during the game to see these things when you seemed to trying to attack queenside. I'm always amazed at how GM's start poking at one side and then just quickly switch and sweep up somewhere else.
Ah, you are of course right, 17... Qd8 would've done well. (17... Rd8 doesn't seem too bad either!)
Anyway, on the topic of the thread, I think I agree with Bondiggity- it wasn't a bad bishop that lost me that game (indeed, I barely had one) but rather my inability to play chess in general.