Materially Imbalanced Position - Who stands better?

Hello there,

I have a position I would like to discuss in greater detail. I'll first give two similar and relevant positions, so there's some sort of reference to fall back on.

Firstly, position A:

The position is described as difficult for both White as Black. Materially, Black obtained two Bishops and two pawns (8 points) for a Queen (9 points). But, of course, there are some imbalances. Black only has the weakness on c7 to worry about and has favourable breaks (c6 and f5), and White can push his h-pawn to harrass the fianchetto formation. The engine attributes a healthy advantage (more than +1) to White. Nonetheless, from a human standpoint, it seems to be a draw at best with accurate play and is proven quite a number of times in practise. 

Secondly, position B: 

This position offers the material imbalance of a Queen (9 points) for a Rook and Bishop (8 points). The position is then described as being a 'drawing line for Black', where Black's light-square Bishop owns the light squares, no apparent weaknesses are present no prospects for White to tear down Black's fortress. Here, the enige disagrees by attributing White with an advantage. The human perspective and play however tells a different tale, one where the strongest grandmasters were held to a draw!

Now I give you the position I want feedback on. Position C:

In the position above, Black enjoys a material imbalance of two pawns and a Queen (11 points) against two Knights and a Bishop (9 points). From my perspective, both sides seem perfectly fine and I would say that White can draw despite being down materially. The engine seems to prefer Black with a slight advantage, yet I can understand that an engine plays at a level we cannot, that it isn't an almighty source and that we chess players should better think for ourselves. That train of thought lead me to the following idea: 

"Black, despite being down three minor pieces, has a solid position devoid of weakness and a pawn majority across the board, which can more easily restricts the manoeuvrability of the White pieces (such as confining the light-square Bishop on c4 with the plan c7-c6 and d6-d5). White, however, has good chances of complicating and infiltrating Black's position if allowed to do so, having two Knights who will flourish. Thus, it occurs to me that Black has the better chances of winning than White, given that Black plays actively."

What surprises me is that White appears to win more often in this line than that the Black player manages to draw or win.

Could anybody offer their insights on Position C. How does the material imbalance(s) and weakness(es) relate to Position A and B? Is Position C just a nightmare for Black to play despite being up materially, or is White's play in Position C just a walk in the park? Am I thinking in the right direction in the line given in Position C?

Black is in serious trouble in Position C.  Minor pieces posted on dark squares can't be dislodged by black except by exchange sacrifice, and black can't mobilize his rooks without creating such holes in his pawn formation.  If black's light square bishop is traded off, then white can post all his remaining minor pieces without fear, and black must then scatter his forces to avoid knight forks.  Meanwhile, the white rooks have two open files to exploit.  White is much better, indeed, if black's light square bishop is traded off for another minor piece (which can usually be forced), it almost becomes hopeless for black.

Rooks without open files to exploit don't count for much, and minor pieces with strong outposts become immensely stronger if the opponent has no minor pieces to exchange them off for.

One other material imbalance I've seen come up quite a few times is Queen+Rook (14 points) versus 2 Rooks+Knight (13 points).  The side with the knight (and I've been on both sides of this) almost always wins, because the knight gets posted permanently in the center of the board, and the other side must scatter the king, queen, and rook, or else place them on different color squares, to avoid forks.  The rook pair support the knight with great flexibility, while the queen & rook can't coordinate at all.

"muh engine says this, muh engine says that"

Bro the engine has absolutely ZERO here, zero relevance to a human playing these positions. ZERO. The engine can give white +3 and what good is that for humans? How does that help anything at all? If the engine gives +3 right and you spend all day trying to figure out why and you think you have it, then in a few moves time it will give -1.5 and you will have no idea where it's getting that from either. Looking at the engine is only useful in reasonably balanced positions, or at least ones that don't fluctuate so much, and even then only sometimes, not wild ones like these and not running to the engine every time. Even the best chess players in the world would have greatly different opinions on these positions as they are hard to grasp - they are wild. But I would choose to play black because on first glance it looks to me like he can survive, castle queenside and use the (alleged) two pawn advantage to his advantage. But I wouldn't be certain. 

If you're looking at materially imbalanced positions you are looking for an opinion. Some players may also understand one position better and how to exploit it. A chess engine doesn't have an opinion, it has an evaluation. 

Thank you all for the replies. 

I agree with the point that the engine has little to say in these positions aside from giving a rather abstract evaluation. I thought I already stressed the importance of the 'human mind and move' after each position (like after position C: 'The engine seems to prefer Black with a slight advantage, yet I can understand that an engine plays at a level we cannot, that it isn't an almighty source and that we chess players should better think for ourselves.), but I guess it can't hurt to stress it time and time again. 

@Dsmith42, I heartily agree with the insights you have provided. I would, however, like to think that Black has means to activate his Rooks. I'd like to think that the center pawn duo could both be used in a forceful way, exchanging themselves for White's c- or f-pawn, thus creating an open file. If the Rooks are traded down the open e- and d-files and the light-square bishop trades off, it would leave Black with 2 extra pawns (on the c- and f-file) and a Queen and King against three minor pieces and a King. Of course, it is all hypothetical and only achievable with accurate moves, so I can agree that White has an easier time stopping Black's plans.

@Uhohspaghettio1,  I first thought the exact same as you just stated. I suspected Black's center pawn duo to be a nice advantage to at least hold White to a draw, if anything. Yet the results paint a different picture. For instance, a search using Position C on an open database such as 365chess stated that in this current position the scorespread is 31 wins for White, 9 draws and 9 wins for Black. That would lead to the belief that Black's position is often worse or difficult to play, even though materially you would say that Black should be better off. This all being said regardless of engine evaluation, of course.

hello 

test