Why Be7/Be2

I understand these moves are played to unpin knights from Bg5, but when there's not a pin, why do people still play that? It seems to be a really passive move that doesn't do anything to attack the center, and a move that develops the bishop to a really passive square, where it will have to move again. So why do people play Be2, instead of the more active Bd3 or Bc4? So can someome please explain to mewhat is the point of Be2 or Be7?

Depends on the position.   Say that a hundred times over and over.

General chess principles/guidelines do not ever ask you to develop pieces to THIS square or THAT square.  They are just principles that have exceptions.  Never lazily rely on them, handwave them around as gospel or get confused when they are not followed in place of concrete analysis based on ... wait for it ... the POSITION!!!!

Any move/idea in chess including moving Knights to the rim of the board, not castling at all etc. are all candidates ... sometimes bad, sometimes even good, necessary or even the best moves (!!!) depending on the position.  

Maybe my bishop wants to be on another diagonal?  Maybe it is prophylactic (defensive idea) .. maybe Bd3/Bc4 are not ready to be "played" just yet ... but preparing for castling seems to be a more urgent idea.  There's just too many IFs here to answer your question specifically.

Consider posting a few actual positions where Be7/Be2 seem to be "bad" to you ... this might allow the thread to prosper with a few good insights from stronger players.

Hi,

You are correct in saying that Be2 and Be7 are passive, often unhelpful, moves.  People usually only play them when there is no better square for the bishop.

Oftentimes, in positions like the one shown below, players may move Be2 and Be7 just to get their kings castled, and then support a d3-d4 push to activate the bishop later in the game.

Often I need to castle and there is no better square for the bishop.

Obviously Be2/Be7 prevents a pin on the knight and brings the bishops closer to the kingside in case they need to defend His Majesty.

In the ruy lopez, black often finds his bishop on e7 misplaced, so he plays 0-0, Re8 and Bf8 to get it back where it belongs.

I obviously prefer Bxf7+/Bxf2+.  

So uber-strong that it towers over Bc4/Bd3 moves.   You think those moves are strong?  Barely ... not Bxf7+ strong.

I saw a guy get mated once thanks to this awesome move. I think it was in a book. Or maybe I was drunk. I can't remember.

So it's my go-to move these days when things get rough. I've even thought of trying Bxh7/h2 but that's too greek-or-latin looking to me.

Let me just demonstrate Be7 with the Nadjorf/Schevenigen

It may be worthwhile looking at popular openings which include Be2 or Be7 (e.g. Ruy Lopez Closed Defense, several Sicilian Defense continuations (as I see the previous post just did)), and see why developing e2/e7 may be preferred to other squares.

One problem with developing the Bishop to a "more active" square is that the Bishop generally safer from exchanges on e2/e7. Unless a player is specifically playing for a draw, it is often a better policy to keep the game complex, rather than allowing simplification into a sterile position.

Okay, so the point of Be2/Be7 is to move the bishop to a better square , or to castle?

In essence, yes. e7 is the most flexible square for a bishop, as it can be deployed on the f8-a3 diagonal or the d8-h4 diagonal. It also protects the d6 and f6 squares.

Often it depends on the pawn structure.  Take the King's Indian Defense.  See below:

Another scenario is many lines of the Sicilian Najdorf:

So as you can see, you can't just pre-meditate squares for each piece, and must play the position that sits in front of you.  Sometimes that means putting Bishops in more passive positions as the position dictates.

Why you say because I have seen this happen too many times: