KNIGHTS BEFORE BISHOPS

"Why knights before bishops?"

Because it is harder to chase away knights with pawns in their natural squares in the beginning? Because it takes longer for the bishops to get out? Because bishops like working from a distance, just like rooks do? Because bishops are good at setting up pins and need time for the opportunity of pinning a piece to come? Because the value of bishops increase as the game progresses? I do not really know.

Because the places of knight development are easier to defend than the bishops'. It's not incorrect to develop bishops before knights, but a bit harder to defend. Knights lay claim to the center. When you play a king's bishop opening, it usually transposes into a kind of Italian game.

In your game, 2... Nc6 is not customary. Normally black plays the classical, 2... Bc5, or the Berlin, 2... Nf6.

white:

- isnt pinned

- has both his bishops out first, which is harder with pawns in the way

- will get knights out first next thing I guess, and black the bishops(taking 1 extra move and in "forced" order(...Bc5 ...d6 ...Bsomething)).

So actually white's advantage is more of being white with initiative. 

[edit] as for reasons why knights first: better mobility, preserving bishops, taking more of the center. (as in why a shotgun instead of sniper rifle) I like the thing said about increasing bishop value. I agree with les pieces in the way the bishop is mightier. But on a chaotic board the knight gets everywhere