How would you have handled this opening?

Behold, the power of the "miserable specimens"!!

No, not one locked in bishop but two for the price of one folks.

You keep using chess terms, but I don't think those words mean what you think they mean

Where is "miserable specimen" in a reputable book?

What’s your argument again? That it would be a mistake to trade off your opponent’s good bishop? Because, what, in some other games, people eventually managed to make a bad bishop (that nevertheless wasn’t as silly awful as the one in the game in question) become somewhat useful? Even if it were always possible to activate a bad bishop without making other concessions (and it isn’t), what bearing does that have on the desirability of trading off your opponent’s *good* bishop?

What’s your argument? That White’s c1 bishop in the game in question was on the verge of becoming good? Just trying to figure out what it is you’re trying to articulate here. I see lots of noise, but it’s not easy to figure out what argument you’re trying to make. 

The signal to noise ratio does seem awfully high

Yes, that occurred to me.

GambitShift closed his account four days ago.

This new account was opened three days ago.

If the point was to trade off the good bishop, I wouldn't have used "miserable specimen". Perhaps we could say, "Formidable Opponent"? Or maybe the dark side of the bishop force?

But to say "miserable specimen" makes "noise" (now what I am being accused of) in the opposite direction. 

The “miserable specimen” blue emu referred to was the bishop on c1, not the one on d3 you could have traded off. Read his post again. Was this all because you misread him?

Stockfish 11 at depth 30 is showing:

e6 = -.82
g6 = -.48
Bxd3 = -.16
Be4 = -.15

If we are to go for the good bishop exchange and reject e6 and g6, what makes those moves worse?

This is what he stated "Why were you reluctant to trade light-squared Bishops?" Then he went on to state "the lsB is your bad Bishop" and "trading leaves White stuck with that miserable specimen"

Did he state "That it would be a mistake to trade off your opponent’s good bishop?"

This is not a matter of me misreading, this is a matter of someone not directing attention to the proper bishop. You directed attention to the "good bishop". So, now I want to look into that.

I am reading it at face value, not misreading. It's all there you can scroll back.

Let's look at the good bishops now. I would like to know what you guys think about this position. Why not Bxe6 here? It looks similar. One bishop is locked in and the other is open. Central pawns are occupying dark squares. So, why didn't Harikrishna play Bxe6? Why put a knight on the rim?

Emu's statement is admirably clear:

"Why were you reluctant to trade light-squared Bishops? With all of your center Pawns on light squares, the lsB is your bad Bishop... and trading leaves White stuck with that miserable specimen on c1, locked in by all those Pawns on dark squares."

If you're reading it in such a tortured way as what you seem to be suggesting. then I'm not really sure how to help you.  (In fairness, your writing is so tangled that I often can't figure out exactly what you mean, and I have a suspicion you can't either.)  But if you're the one asking for advice, and you're lucky enough to receive it from a strong player and helpful forumite like bluemu, you would do well to start from the assumption that you can gain some thing from properly understanding his post. It's completely fine to ask for clarification if you don't.  That would be a much more effective strategy than assuming he (and everyone else in the thread) is an idiot, and that none of us know what we're talking about.

As for your other post, nobody said that e6 or g6 would be bad moves there.  They asked why you were afraid of trading light squared bishops.  Moves that leave the tension like e6 and g6 have their purpose and might be better.  What's not so great (not horrible, of course, but not optimal) is Ne4, which prevents you from trading off LSBs, at least for now.  The engine agrees with that assessment.

If you want to have a conversation about whether e6 or g6 might have been better moves there, and what the strategic ideas behind them might be, by all means ask.  But what you're doing now is classic goalpost-moving.  People tried to push you on *your* logic ("I didn't want to trade off bishops"), and when they did, you start pointing the finger in brand new directions.  That's not a good way to have a productive conversation.  If that's what you want.  Maybe it isn't.

"But what you're doing now is classic goalpost-moving."

I didn't know the point was to trade "good bishops". The goal post I read was "miserable specimen". 

I read it for what it was. You are informing me the goal post is not the miserable specimen on c1 but the good bishop on d3. So, now I am following you to the goal post you are pointing to. Let's talk about that instead.

He clearly recommended to trade your bad LSB for the opponent's good LSB. There is not much to misunderstand there. The "miserable specimen" he's referring to is White's bad DSB.

"He clearly recommended to trade your bad LSB for the opponent's good LSB."

It wasn't clear to me then. If we are on the same page now, then let's talk about the good bishops then. What about the Ruy Lopez above? Why not Bxe6? Why put the knight on the rim instead?

Emu's post is completely clear about this.  You just didn't read it carefully.  That's not a mortal sin -- we all read carelessly from time to time.  But most of us don't dig in when we do.

"Moving the goalposts" does not mean whatever it is you're taking it to mean.  If it's a term you're not familiar with, that's fine -- I'm happy to explain it.  (It might be better for you to ask, rather than assume you know better and then post confused nonsense).

Moving the goalposts is a logical fallacy where a person makes one claim, and then, when objections to that claim are raised, starts making tangentially related claims as though these tangential objections are what his interlocutors needed to address all along.  It's like you say the goal is one place, and then, after your interlocutors kick the ball at it, you move the goal somewhere else, hence "moving the goalposts."

To give an example from this forum, a few weeks ago, someone here started claiming that it's ridiculous to describe 1 e4 e5 2 f4 exf4 3 Nf3 g5 as a line that is characteristic of the King's Gambit as it was played in an earlier period.  When everyone here piped up and said that, yes, of course that was a very common line that is commonly associated with the KG in its heyday (from about the 1850s through the 1880s or so).  the person started shifting the claim to say that in order to show that the g5 variation of the King's Gambit was popular then, you'd have to show that it was frequently played in world championship matches then.  That was a completely different standard and had no bearing on his objection to the original statement that g5 was a move typical of an older period.  Again, goalpost-shifting.

That person wouldn't be a cousin of yours, would he?

So let me get this straight.

1. I asked about a position.

2. I was told a bishop was a "miserable specimen".

3. I asked about it for up to 24 hours.

4. Clarification was made that it was the other bishop that I should be focused on.

5. I then asked about the other bishop.

6. I was then accused of moving the goal posts.

7. Then someone mentioned a thread from weeks ago instead of talking about the good bishop on d3 or the Ruy Lopez game I am asking about now.

Are you sure you aren't the one moving the goal post?

The white LSB in that Ruy is not so bad, because it's not locked in by it's own pawns. Bxe6 just looks like Black gets a super strong center and a semi open f file to work with. That knight went to the rim not to stay there, but it's heading for f5.