Premature, as stated. Black's play has been OK so far: fairly provocative (but White's being pretty cagey, not overcommitting himself). But Black ought now to "get in" 7...d6, before White gets too big and powerful a hold of the centre.

This would be OK if Black got something "extra" in the bargain. But it seems that White gets the extra here: an attack on the light squares on the Q-side... Had White had to retake with the g-pawn, the exchange might have been worth considering - the weakness induced in White's K-side.

Actually this is quite a good "bad" bishop (It's worth noting that so-called "bad" bishops aren't always liabilities. I've known positions - admittedly not very common, but not rare neither - in which the "bad" bishop has been more of an asset than the "good" bishop. In this position both White's bishops are useful assets. Think of the "bad" bishop being one who has made a pact with the Devil...). Here, trading it for Black's g7-bishop is worth considering, so maybe White is thinking of following up with Nc3-e4, after ...0-0, say. But 12...d6 drives the bishop back, or induces an undesirable exchange on f6.

Black would have been better off with 12...d6(!) and if 13.Bxf6?! Bxf6 14.Ne4 Bg7 (15.Ng5?!) 0-0) with an OK game for Black. It's in Black's interests to retain the dark-square bishop as protector of the dark squares around the king.