why knights before bishops?

One of the general opening rules is Knights before Bishops... We've all heard it... But I'm not too sure of its reasoning. Anyone care to enlighten me on this guideline?!

I understood that it is because it is easier to decide where to place your knights ...

Bishops have more money, so the poor Knights have to go directly to the Front.

Exactly!

1. A Knight can move without first moving pawns.

2. Knight moves are ambiguous since they have only certain squares that make sense and such moves a general with most openings. A Bishop's landing square telegraph's the player's intentions. So, moving Knight's first is a way of not showing your cards too soon.

3. By the same token, often the Bishop's best square can be better determined once the other player has committed himself to some plan. Generally, with the Knight's the choice of squares is limited anyway.

i don't know too much in depth or neither have I studied books but... i like to use my pawns first to get an opening for bishops... i'm not too fond in using my knights... dunno why... though i've been playing chess for over 10 years now...

I think it's also related to the basic principle that in the first moves one has to control the center. Two knights control all of the 4 central squares from a safe position, whereas two bishops can only control 2 central squares from a somehow exposed square.

If we add this to the "move first the less mobile piece" rule already mentioned, I think it becomes even clearer.

Agree with the earlier posts suggesting that you are showing your hand with each piece move. Knights are slow-moving and don't have two many initial jump squares They don't convey as much of their intent as do the bishop on their first move.

another reason is that bishops can get trapped in front of their own pawn chains. when this happens it's sometimes easy to exchange a knight for that bishop, maybe hurting the opponent's pawn structure too, and/or taking away his bishop pair. those are both positional advantages, especially if you think you can exchange one or two pairs of pawns and maybe a pair of knights to open things up for your bishop pair and get closer to an endgame where their weaker pawn structure is a bigger deal.

 I'm a little suprised a 1900 is asking this question.  Knights before bishops are because generally Knights are easier to figure out where the best square will be early.  Bishops sometimes it takes a little while before you know where to put the bishop to have the most effect.  The fact that there are fewer options with the knights is why they are generally developed first, but it's also because the knights do a fabulous job of covering 2 center squares.

b2 and g2 need protection until you can castle or move a rook over! haha.

I'm prejudice. I like the knight, so he goes first.  

It's a specific example of Lasker's idea of maximizing your options.  Following his principle you should move first the piece with the fewer options.

Knights before bishops should refer to the opening moves! some players think of them as the defense pieces and the bishops as attacking pieces.But used right the knights can be very effective in some attacks but a lot of players feel the bishops are the better piece to have in the end games.