Bishop pair and single bishop (Bx_6)

The c3 Pawn won't go to d4 unless Black exchanges on d4. Why would he do that? 

Bear in mind that the player who initiates an exchange almost always loses a move.

Example: after 1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Black (who initiated the exchange on d4) has lost a move, because his c-Pawn moved twice and then disappeared TAKING THOSE TWO MOVES WITH IT, while the White d-Pawn moved only once and then disappeared.

So why guard the Knight with c3 when the exchange is not something Black will normally do, anyway? You are proposing to lose at least one more move with the c3-Knight by moving it off that square... and more likely, two more moves since it has no really useful square to go to; in order to guard a Knight on d4 that Black is unlikely to trade off anyway.

Black isn't likely to make the trade just to help your Pawn get to d4... he would need a reason.

"Bear in mind that the player who initiates an exchange almost always loses a move."

How?

Brother, you have asked a couple of questions, people have made the effort to post constructive answers with a lot of useful information regarding both the bishop pair and the other factors in the position. A nice thing for people to do right? This is all useful stuff if you want to learn but instead you nit pick about the specifics of the question etc. How about a 'thanks for the responses guys, really useful'? I recall a guy from some time ago who did the exact same thing, I guess it was you under a different name. 

"but instead you nit pick"

The question is about the bishops, I am not nitpicking. If you want to buy socks, are you nitpicking if the store clerk tells you where the pants are?

I can already see the other points you made. But I was unclear about the bishop pair question.

We are now discussing a c3 move. You could instead of answering in a general manner, read the thread and comment based on the progress of the thread.

Reminds me of the veinna gambit 

Look at this position. Count the moves that are visible on the board:

White has two Pawn moves and one Knight move visible. Total: three moves.

Black has two Pawn moves visible, and it's Black's move. Total: three moves.

Now see what happens when Black trades Pawns:

Now count again.

White has ONE Pawn move visible... the Queen's Pawn is gone, so you don't count it... and two Knight moves (N(g1)-f3-d4). Total: THREE moves.

Black has one Pawn move visible and nothing else. It's Black's move. Total: TWO moves.

By initiating the exchange, Black has lost a move.

The first two pages of this thread give you all the info you need to understand Space/Time/Force assessments.

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/gm-larry-evans-method-of-static-analysis

"Black has two Pawn moves visible, and it's Black's move. Total: three moves."

I don't see that. I see 2 moves. c5 and d6. The third has yet to be made.

"White has ONE Pawn move visible... the Queen's Pawn is gone, so you don't count it... and two Knight moves (N(g1)-f3-d4). Total: THREE moves."

Why don't you count it? Looks like a 4th move.

"Black has one Pawn move visible and nothing else. It's Black's move. Total: TWO moves."

I don't know why you are removing one move from the total. What is the point?

"By initiating the exchange, Black has lost a move."

Black never made their move. White moved first, and if we look at a move where only white moves, then it will always be one move ahead regardless if you trade.

I'll look at the link.

I looked at the link and commented there. I figure it would be more useful to talk about bishop pair here and space and time and what I am calling moves on the other thread.

The problem here is that many well-meaning people have devoted time and effort to trying to give the OP excellent chess advice. This was a mistake

I think people want to give advice, but they don't want to understand the question. Yes, if all you want to do is list "advice" then most likely the student is not going to make use of it all.

If you want to help a student progress, you have to isolate one thing and focus on it. Being an expert in something means you know many facets. Being a teacher means you hone in on the one facet that will help the student for that time. 

In other words, do chapter 1, then wait to make sure the student understands that before teaching chapter 2. If you list all the points in each chapter, you overwhelm the student. 

Not all chess experts are meant to teach, but those that can should learn to focus on one thing at a time.

That's only true when you are dealing with a subject where a reductionist approach is useful. If it's a subject that requires a holistic approach, then this "isolate one thing and focus on it" will only mislead the student.

Chess doesn't work that way. It would be very rare when the only issue in the position is something as simple as "Are the two bishops good?" or "is c3 a good idea?" These questions only have answers within the context of the entire position. If you focus too narrowly on one tiny question and ignore the rest of the context, you will not learn very much that you will be able to apply in new and different positions 

If I need to go shopping for a wedding and all I need are a suit, tie, shirt, pants, belt, underwear, shoes, and socks but I am missing socks then I will go to a store asking for socks. I don't need to know about the other things. 

You are going to end up with a lovely pair of socks which fail to save the rest of your ugly outfit if you don't listen to the store clerk. The clerk understands that an outfit is a whole package in which all elements compliment each other and result in a strong look. The clerk looks better than you too, so probably worth taking his advice on both the socks and the pants which might go well with them. 

I never said it was the only issue. I asked 1 question, just like I might ask a salesperson "where are the socks?" 

That doesn't mean the salesperson should thing "Oh this person is going to a wedding and he is only asking for socks. Doesn't he also know he needs a suit and a tie and a......."

The question was answered about the bishop pair, that is what my socks were. That is the level of content I have for my question to be answered and I thank you. I don't need a lecture on the space time continuum.

I admire the way you resolutely refuse to absorb any information that is not design specifically to answer the narrowest possible question. I'm sure that's how all the great players learned chess

Then don't read it.

Still, it's odd that so many people posted comments in the thread like "Very insightful!" and "extremely interesting!" and "very helpful", while you seem to feel that it's a waste of time.