Bishops and Knights are equal

 Even then it is exetremely difficult, and can be affected by that nasty 50 move rule

And now you're rewriting things.  You started out making stupid statements about Bishops "always" being better and people with two Bishops "never" allowing closed positions.  Now you're making more reasonable statements using words like "relative".  See?  You've learned something.  Now, be sure to thank everyone for setting you straight.

Once again, your very first dribble in this thread (post #13) started out by saying "bishops are always slightly better than knights" and you labeled another poster's statements that either piece could be more valuable in different situations as "mindless stupid things".  You've since posted more reasonable comments indicating you might actually have an understanding that the relative values of the pieces depends strongly on the position.

I never claimed the comments by Kaufman and Watson were stupid.  I said your initial comment was stupid, and I was right.

That's ridiculous

You need to look up the definition of always.  Simple as that.

Chess is a team work you need to see whole picture -position, tactics - and then decide which one is valuable.

Uh-oh, looks like Cystem's causing trouble again (now he's arguing with Morphy!).

Dictionaries!? We don't need no stinking dictionaries!

Spoken like a true champ:

And that was exactly your error.  Sometimes Knights are better.  Get it?  Sometimes. 

It's clear from some of your phrases such as "Thats Obvious as u dont understand the sentence in average or generally." that you are not especially crafty with the English language.  It's also clear that you don't understand the difference between saying "always slightly better" as you incorrectly stated in post #13 and your later correct phrases that you seem to think are synonymous, such as "most of the time" and "depends on position" as in post #62.

On the plus side though, he doubtless has the makings of a real fine lawyer someday...

Who cares about stats of GrandMaster games.  Are you guys GM's or playing GMs?

The smart money is on mastering knights to the highest degree & they pwning weak players who are overeager to "accquire the two bishops".  IM Mark Diesen has a good couple of videos on chess.fm on the power of knights even in open positions when they are well-placed.

From "Rethinking the Chess pieces" by Soltis . In this table is reported the average mobility of the pieces obtained from a sample of matches (pawn =1) x number of moves.

Unfortunately the dynamic value of the king is not reported

Notes

Sometimes knights are better than bishops.

Average doesnt help you much. It's Useless for calculating. You have to analyze.

And since there is talk of dictionaries in this thread, I looked a term up:

Good Bishop (n) : The bishop you still have left on the board!

I would also like to take this time to deomonstrate the inadequacies of the bishop.

Instead of saying Bishops are always slightly better, you could have said Bishops are slightly better than knights in certain circumstances.

 Yes. Of course, you can also say the exact same thing about pawns and queens.

 You could do another thread with the King as the subject.

Although the King is not a subject.

considering that in the opening and middlegame the King has to hide maybe we can modify the table like this.

King        -              -                 4 

Which is different from your original statement: "Bishops are always slightly better than knights."

It's not the same.  Always means always, it doesn't matter what subjective clause you follow it with.

One should always avoid absolutes.