Knights/Bishops - Why do good players (and engines) not open ''agressively''?

Good day to everyone, 

When playing openings as a beginner I always just want to get my bishops and knights out as far as possible. For some reason it just feels right, it feels ''offensive'' and ''spacy'' as it creates space in the back, attacks the centre etc.. But after discovering the analyse function on chess.com, the engine often recommended putting my f1 bishop on e2 in stead of c4, or my knight on d2 in stead of c3. To me as a beginner this seems very counterintuitive, as putting pieces on the second rank seems very blocking and wasting development moves. I tried to play some games like that, but ended up getting constricted and crushed.. lol. 

So, two questions:

1. What are the ideas behind developing with knights/bishops on the second rank? 

2. Are there some rules of thumb I should be aware of in order to know when it is best to put your bishops/knights on the second rank rather than on the third/fourth? 

Looking forward to your answers! 

Greetings from Amsterdam. 

It would be great is you could post some examples  so that we can be sure what you're talking about. One obvious answer is that the pawn structure usually determines the best placement for your pieces: What is smart piece placement in one pawn structure may well be a very inefficient development in another structure, Give us some examples and I'm sure you will get some useful answers

 

Thanks for the answer! I have a hard time finding the games, but here I have an example where black could both have played Be7 or Bb4. I guess here Be7 is okay because it avoids the f6knight from getting pinned. I am trying some other examples... 

Or here, white's move 5, when I play bishop to g5, pinning the black knight on f6 is considered an inacurracy. Free development + a pin equals winwin in my mind, and so I decided to pin the knight. The engine does not give otehr recommendations, it just says ''Bg5 is an inaccuracy''. I hate it when he does that x). Looking for more... 

Here I am black. On move 8 I played Bg4, according to the same principles, but again it is considered an inaccuracy. The engine instead recommends a5.

 

On move 9 I played Be5, again according to the same principles mentioned above, which is considered a mistake. Why? I can see that e4 is a good move as well, though. 

 

You have to look at each position individually but I guess often the reason moving a Bishop out to something like c4 or c5 could be bad could be because the Bishop may become exposed (to Na5 or something) or because it was needed for defense of its color squares say on e2 or e7. The reasons why moving it out to pin a knight can be more complicated. You might think about what you want to do with that pin. In openings where that kind of pin is book it's usually because the Knight is defending a key square in the center and you want to get play by putting more pressure on that square. If that's not the case then the pin can be bad as, again the Bishop can become a target. The opponent can hit it with h3 (h6) and you have to either trade it for the Knight (which is generally not desirable) or back it off. If you back it off and the opponent can play for example g4 (g5) (may or may not be good depending where their King is) or the other Knight to g3 (g6) (for example Nd2-f1(usually after castling and Re1)g3) then again the Bishop is under attack. You can end up with an opponent's Knight hopping into f4(f5) and have to trade your Bishop for it anyway, or you can end up with your Bishop on h2(h7) staring at a wall of pawns completely out of play. It's like being down a piece. ... someone did a video specifically on this pin cocept, I will see if I can find it. I found it. It's GM Smirnov. You might like to check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_zWJHYWWJs

 

This example is maybe the most emblematic one. On move 15 I played Ng5. It is considered a mistake, and the engine recommends Nd2 in stead. But it looks so whimsical and passive, which is why I never thought of actually playing it. What do I need to change in my mind, in order to more quickly start seeing the mistakes in something that at first glance may seem ''agressive''? Thank you very much. 

Thank you so much for the video, it is wonderful! As for your comments, I see what you mean. I take away from it that it is good as a rule of thumb to take the knight if it can ruin the pawn-structure in front of a castled king. However, sometimes it is book to take the knight, even though the pinned queen can recapture the bishop, which I never quiet understood. But these things are more arcane, heheh. 

Beginners are typically overaggressive, especially with knight moves, where the pieces advance with no real threats, only to be driven back with loss of tempo. In one example above, you moved your bishop to pin a knight when you should have been focused on recovering your pawn which had just been captured by ... dxc4. After your Bg5, Black could think about trying to keep the extra pawn with ... c6, preparing to play ... b5. Usually Black cannot keep the pawn in the QGA, but with enough inaccurate moves by White, at some point he may be able to. I did not analyze it here, just a quick glance, but those are things you should think about. In one example above, the knight was better going to d2 to support playing e3-e4, since going to g5 it had no real threats before it could be driven back by a pawn attack, and would have no good retreats (at e4, it would attack Black's queen temporarily but would then be in the way of advancing the e-pawn).

Often times it depends specifically on the Opening.

For example, in the Slav, Black's pawn is on c6, and so the Knight often goes to d6 because that is the square available to it.

 

In other cases, it is based on a choice.  Take the French.  White can play 3.Nd2 or 3.Nc3 to protect the pawn.  3.Nd2 is somewhat passive and blocks in the Bishop, but his Pawn structure remains intact.  For 3.Nc3, it is theoretically stronger, but White runs the risk of his Pawn structure being destroyed via Bb4 and Bxc3, leading to doubled pawns for White.

 

There is no blanket answer to your question.

I guess you need to ask yourself what your "aggressive" moves really accomplish.  Sure, you might pin a knight, but what is the point to the pin?  Is the knight protecting an important piece/square?  Would capturing the knight force your opponent to have weak, doubled pawns, or would it open up lines to your opponent's king?  Would the knight be better off on a different square and pinning it would keep it from improving its position?  If you don't have a good answer to these questions, then your seemingly "aggressive" move really just puts your Bishop in a vulnerable place where it can be forced away.

 

Similarly with your example with the knight.  What is it really doing on g5?  It attacks the pawns on h7 and f7 and the square e6, but all of those are sufficiently protected.  Black has a dark-square weakness around his king, but without your own dark-squared bishop, you can't really do anything about that, and you can not easily support the knight on g5 without making weakening moves.  The only real place you can move your knight after g5 (other than back to f3) is e4, but that blocks in your e-pawn.  Since you have a space/material advantage in the center, you really want to be pushing that e-pawn, so blocking it with a knight on e4 is counter-productive.  And if you really wanted to get the knight to e4, then maneuvering through d2 is both safer and more flexible.

 

So remember, just because a move "looks" aggressive, doesn't mean it actually accomplishes anything.  Really ask yourself if the aggressive post is useful before making the move.

Also, if the computer is calling it an "inaccuracy," then perhaps the idea behind the move is ok, just the timing is wrong - like maybe you need to make another move first to prepare for your chosen move or to cover a [potential] weakness.

Bg5 is perfectly OK but the computer is probably thinking about 5. e3 or e4 to regain the pawn. There is really no point in wasting 1 tempo to pin the knight when it doesn't do anything important.

Woah, thank you all very much for your time and answers! To be honest with you I feel slightly overwhelmed, heheh, When I opened up the forum, the first post to catch my attention was titled ''poop is dumb'' (sic), containing such enlightening replies as ''ur gay so shutup'' and ''ur lesbian right f***er'' followed by a series of nine-year-old altercations on the nature of homosexuality mixed in with some troll feeding. I would say something about moderation, but then I realize that people have lives... 

A special thanks to Manatini for his very, very elaborate and enlightening examples which were exactly what I was looking for. Also: ''In general bishops are worth very slighly more than knights, so you shouldn't rush to trade them... but it's never too uncomfortable to trade the bishop that's on the same color as your central pawn.'' This, believe it or not, actually blew my mind as it uprooted my understanding of space in chess o.O (hint: I had no such understanding in the first place...). 

Also a special thanks to omnipaul for ''Since you have a space/material advantage in the center, you really want to be pushing that e-pawn, so blocking it with a knight on e4 is counter-productive.'' When playing that game I had no particular plan in mind, as it never even occured to me that pushing pawns with a (material) advantage in the centre would be fruitful. I shall remember this furtheron. Now it appears obvious to me why Ng5 was a waste. 

Briefly, thank you al very, very much for your answers, they truly were of great help to me!