[note: giving position only to offer perspective as to what the game looked like at the time]

White:
3 Kingside pawns [h2/g2/f2, king at g1]
1 pawn on the "c" file [c3]
1 pawn on the "b" file [b2]
1 pawn on the "a" file [a2]
2 knights [i believe they were at Nf3 and Nd4, but i could be wrong, analyzing the game right now on Fritz so I can't check for sure]
2 rooks [once again, i believe they were located at Re1 and Ra1]

Black:
3 Kingside pawns [h7/g6/f7, king at g8]
1 pawn on the "c" file [c4]
1 pawn on the "a" file [a6]
2 bishops [I believe they were at Bf6 and Bd7]
2 rooks [I believe they were at Rf8 and Rb8]

-=-=-

Basically the game amounted to 2 rooks + 2 knights + 6 pawns v. 2 rooks + 2 bishops + 5 pawns. Black [myself] won.

Which player would you rather be?

Note: I couldn't remember who was to move in this position. I think it was white.

If I remember correctly, his next move was Re1.

That was sort of my thinking... though I'm curious because, while I do generally subscribe to the theory that 2 bishops are superior to two knights, it's tough to say if 2 bishops are worth the pawn that black is down.

In the end, I ended up having to trade 1 bishop and 1 rook for 1 knight and 1 rook [i ran out of space], but was able to pick-up a pawn before i had to make that exchange, and picked up another immediately afterwords because of the risk of mate.

Still, I think my opponent made a few errors that changed the outcome, and as I said; on a general level the whole 2K+p v. 2B was the reason I wanted to post.

White. mainly because of the material advantage and because with careful play I dont think black can win anything back.

I looked at it with my computer and white is slightly better by about +.30, but if its is blacks move then black should win this by first snatching the b2 pawn with the Rook.

White if its white's turn (otherwise will lose a pawn on b2).