Trading bishop for knight?

Should you trade a bishop for a knight?

In positions like this, people trade their bishop for a knight. Do you think it is a good idea?

Which would you say is more valuable? 2 knights or 2 bishops?

Bishop pair as they're snipers

knights r good cuz they can fork pretty good

depends ngl

idk

in this position, i would either play Be7 or Bc5... i won't trade for no reason

I've heard that having 2 knights in endgame cannot force a checkmate.

But you could checkmate using two bishops. 

Depends on position

it mostly depends on the position and wether or not it would benefit you considering the small weaknesses like the light or dark square complexes, pawn structures, or king safety and wether or not it would be worth the exchange. if you have a good bishop most would preserve it and the same goes for knights as both pieces can become very lethal once placed on good squares but as i stated before it depends on position and if its worth it.

They said that knights could be  more useful in closed positions. Also sometimes they trade bishop for knight to tangle. 

Two bishops are stronger ofc

theres suck thing as 2 knight mate

No, trading the bishop for the knight is not a great trade. It's not enough to lose the game immediately, but the bishop tends to become stronger than a knight in most games. That's because almost all games open up at some point. In these kinds of positions, the bishop is also a powerful piece aimed at the kingside. When your opponent has a strong bishop, you usually want to have your own bishop too to challenge it if need be. Of course there is more to consider when you make such a trade. For example, the white a-pawn becomes isolated (and potentially weak) and white gets doubled pawns. But that's not such a big problem. The doubled pawn is not easily attacked and as it's a c-pawn, it can influence the center. White can play c4 at some point, and then c3-d4 if he would want to, to try and take over the center. Also, white gets an open b-file for his rook, and the a-pawn is not easily attacked, so not much of a weakness. So if you look at it all at once, you can see that white gets a bishop for a knight, which should be stronger in the long run, white gets an extra c-pawn to influence the center and a half-open file, while black only gets a weakish white a-pawn that isn't easily attacked. That's why the trade should be fine for white.

Trading bishop for knight in a closed position is a good idea but trading a bishop for knight in a open position is bad idea 

*such

In close positions bishops sucks but in open positions, they are snipers .In some positions you can trade bishop for a knight if suppose your knight can get an center outpost square ,which is great ig cuz knights in the center are truly VENOMOUS .In the diagram which you showed i dont think its that bad to trade the bishop for the knight ,altho losing the bishop pair , i still dont hate black's position cuz after 1. Bxc3 ,bxc3 ,black can go for 2.d5 exd5 3.Nxd5 Be2 and white has two bishops and open "b" file ,i still dont like the fact that white's LSB is stuck inside not in a great condition and need to waste some move in order to develop it with something like g3,Bg2 which will take some time and black is just a move away from castling .So in this position ,i dont think that its so bad also .

In these kinds of position ,I like how nicely the knight is in the center .So it depends on the nature of the  position 

The only time I recommend trading bishop for knight, is if you get a pawn somehow and the knight. Another exception being, you and your opponent still have all of your pawns or nearly all of them, clogging the board and the bishops are practically useless and you see no end in sight, to the pawns clogging the board. 

I noticed another poster recommended if a knight is outposted in a place in your territory and you have no other means to attack it, and you see that your opponent has potential threats combining the knight and other pieces, that will force you to lose material, then absolutely trade it. An out posted knight like that is said to increase in value from 3 to 5 pawns. That means sometimes even a rook can be traded for that piece. If you watch master games, you will see this happen sometimes, as it is the only means of survival, to have a chance to reach a draw. There are also exchange sacrifices, which take careful calculation to see that you get more material in return, or equal material, but with a superior position or perhaps the initiative. I just want you to understand the difference. 

No, you should keep your bishop pair, but sometimes in openings such as the Caro-Kann for instance you have to trade if you get some positions

A King, two Knights and nothing else can mate if the opponent walks into it or if the opponent has a pawn far enough back to be blocked before starting on the mating attack or if the position has an immediate forced mate (such as when a lone knight delivers a smothered mate after a queen sac).

Otherwise no.

Sure, but of course black has a decent position after 5. ... Bxc3, 6. bxc3, d5; 7. exd5; Nxd5. White has already made 2 mistakes (d3 and a3). But after 1. e4, e5; 2. Nf3, Nc6; 3. Nc3, Nf6; 4. d3? black can already play 4. ... d5. This is even better than trading the bishop with 4. ... Bb4. And of course we're not going back after 4. ... Bb4; 5. a3. For example 5. ... Ba5, 6. b4, Bb6; 7. Bg5 is already better for white. So if black goes for 4. ... Bb4, it's only normal he's taking on c3, otherwise it'd be a waste of time. And of course after 5. a3, taking on c3 doesn't even cost black time, so black also gets an initiative in your position after 7. ... Nxd5, which will be quite annoying. 

But in the context of taking this knight with our bishop, I'm pretty sure not many strong players would play 4. ... Bb4 after 4. d3, but would go 4. ... d5 and just keep their bishop.