which one is better? two bishops or a rook and a knight?

I am a beginner and I was playing. Ended up with two bishops and the opponent had a rook and a knight. We agreed on a draw. If we didn't, who would most likely win?

The person which saw, and took advantage of the others blunder. Other than that, it should be a draw.

Rook and a knight are a bit stronger but not enough to win when there are no pawns. Were there any?

It is generally a draw, but there are exceptions too, e.g.

I just checked your game, engine liked black's position and favored black.
You probably would've won if you could trade off your knight for their bishop and also you had an extra pawn (2 against 1). Depends on how could in the endgame you are I guess.

I say rook and a knight

rook and a knight

See what i mean

As John Nunn says in his book secrets of pawnless endings, this is usually a draw and offers almost no winning chances for the stronger side, although there are wins that take up to 210 moves for the rook and knight. This is isually a draw because Two bishops are awesome at controlling the knight and trading minors will result in an easy book draw

Idc

He said he was a beginner. In that case, there is no such thing as an easy book draw. I like big's answer. The side that wins will be the side that saw the others mistake (assuming no bigger mistakes of his own).

What was the time control?

Depending on that, perhaps one player could have won by flagging the opponent, even if they couldn't win by checkmate...

Thinking on that, in that case the rook+knight is better; since a rook+knight can trade minor pieces if they're being flagged and come out with a draw, 2 bishops cannot.

I think there are points for every piece

bishops are 3 each I think

knight is also 3 and knight is 5 I think

I meant rook is 5

Someone asking for the outcome had they continued the game, would certainly not be interested in winning by "timeout" or by blunder. Then too he would have learned nothing about what to expect with decent play. This is a theory question and Nunn's explanation will do. Btw, the OP didn't answer to the question about pawns in the position. Beginners tend to ignore those as "insignificant" as in "oh yeah, there were some pawns as well"

Also, never mention "time control" without explaining that chess.com's timeout rules violate the FIDE laws. It's cowboy land out here and this is an opportunity to provide a decent education.

I love cowboys. They always do what's right.

The OP can speak for themselves, of course. However:

It's already been answered what would happen with perfect play, it's a draw. Saying that again wouldn't contribute anything.

It seems to me part of the OP's question is "should my opponent have accepted the draw offer"; and in a time scramble, the answer to that is potentially "no". That's useful information.

Yes, it's true that under FIDE, you're still losing getting timed out in a rook vs bishop game. I was assuming this was a chess.com (or USCF) game.

Although actually, my answer kind of relied on the fact you can force a piece trade or perpetual check if you're playing RN vs BB, and I don't actually know that, just suspect it.