+2000 Convert A piece for 2 or 3 pawns in a endgame with other pieces on the board

@Slugy
Yes, 3 pawns for a piece is even if there are no other pieces. And that's why exchanging rooks in such a position explains why the position favours pawn side. If rooks would have been there then it would help in advancing the pawns and the bishop as well. This is a case of the leveling effect.

Edit: When I am unable to continue a game from a particular position, I use this method to understand how to progress:
Play Stockfish level 8 from the position as White in one game and challenge Stockfish level 8 from the same position as Black. Set the time control unlimited or correspondence. Then play Stockfish's move in other game from both sides until a result is reached or the position which confirms the fate of the game. Then request computer analysis since the moves won't be best as we have Stockfish 13 analysis in the analysis board.
Understand the logic behind Stockfish moves and it requires brain to work!

Well, I made the study of the position from move 29: lichess.org/study/hzp6o2tW

See, even Stockfish 8 took 64 moves to arrive at the result. So, it's not that easy for a normal human to arrive at a proper result. But we only need to reach to a position which tells by itself who is winning.

@Akbar2thegreat

What is the "leveling effect"?

@Slugy
Read the second paragraph of: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_piece_relative_value#Standard_valuations

@Akbar2thegreat Ok nice TY :)

Never heard of that leveling thing before. And God only knows what this means: "Chess-variant theorist Betza identified the 'leveling effect', which causes reduction of the value of stronger pieces in the presence of opponent weaker pieces, due to the latter interdicting access to part of the board for the former in order to prevent the value difference from evaporating by 1-for-1 trading."

@MrPushwood
You are a NM, you should have known if you aren't joking.
Also, it's based on the chess theory.
Well, I got to know about it while I was researching for a chess topic.
Though you haven't heard before (if you are saying the truth), but I suppose you understand it more better than me.

@MrPushwood
Quite. It is indeed difficult to even imagine a position where stronger pieces are not in the presence of "opponent weaker pieces." The statement itself says little more than "when down, don't trade," which has been lore for centuries.