Rules for a Draw are not real life

Over the past few weeks I ended up with some surprises due to the "Draw by Timeout vs Insufficient Material' rule.  Also, over time I have been amazed that a "draw" is not really a draw when it comes to rating points assigned.

Which makes me wonder if these rules are more an artifact of having a computer watching over the game vs the age old situation of playing timed chess with a clock.  In real life speed chess, if one player cannot checkmate their opponent before their clock runs out, they simply lose.

Similarly, if two players agree to a draw there should be no assignment of rating points in that process.

Best example of how this played out for me:  ....due to some blunders I ended up with only my King with an opponent with a King, a Rook and three Pawns with 1:20 left on their clock.  You would think that they could effect a checkmate in that time with that material?

But, my opponent simply lacked end-game skills and I managed to take ALL three of his pawns.   And he could still not checkmate with a King and a Rook.  His clock ran out.  It got decided as a "draw" and I lost 2 points.  Makes no sense.

The existing rules for draws and clock timeouts and how points are assigned should be simplified to what happens in real life games.    A draw is a draw, with no points exchanged and if a player's clock times out they lose. 

Idk what you mean by "real life" but in otb chess it is a draw if you run out of time and your opponent has no material and if there is a draw then rating points are typically exchanged

Any kind of "adjustment" made in timed chess sort of defeats the purpose of the clock.   Regardless of what might happen after the clock times out for one player, it does not change the fact that the player whose clock timed out failed to secure a win in their allotted time. 

Plus, decisions made at the point in time when one clock times out does not handle the history leading up to that point.  The one game that really struck me was the one pictured here.
One has to ask a simple question if you look back at where the game was 1:21 where WHite had a Rook and 3 Pawns?  Seems pretty simple to secure a Mate in that time with that material....  But, as we see in the final instant, White lost all 3 Pawns to a single King.  Who let's that happen?

I guess I should be grateful for only losing a couple of points rather than 8-9 points.... :-)

But, really......

if you draw with a lower rated player--of course you lose rating points. 

You apparently do  not understand how the rating system works???

look at  the ratings

you probably were higher rated

and if a higher rated drew against a lower rated, they lose points (duh)

white ran out of time

tell me can black checkmate with only a king?

so its a draw

Did you ever consider not playing such poor players??

Exactly!

If the rating change were +16 for a win, +-0 for a draw, - 16 for a loss, regardless of the rating of the players, I could beat a beginner 1000 times and inflate my rating to over 16 000.

I don’t know what real life chess you’ve been playing, but that’s not true if the opponent only has (for example) a king. 

FIDE laws of chess section 6.9:

“if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.“

chess.com uses a slightly simplified version of that rule whereby if you only have KN or KB and your opponent runs out of time, you don’t get the win, even if you could theoretically construct a (highly unlikely) contrived mating scenario. 

its wrong statement

The Fide rule applies to regular board chess where there is a required number of moves by each player during a given time frame.  It's a stretch to apply that to speed chess where there is no number of moves required.  The clock is a hard limit regardless of number of moves taken.

I wonder if all this post game analysis that occurs after the flag falls is just trying to make an excuse for not getting the job done.  It's a form of "if only I had a few more minutes I could win....."

Lots of comments about whether the game example I gave should have been played, why did I end up with only a King, etc.  That all doesn't matter.  It is what it is.  How the end result got modified by some rule that I have never seen while playing speed chess with somebody in person, just amazes me.

You can always use a computer to over analyze anything...... :-)

Nope - same thing applies in OTB blitz tournaments. Can't win on time with just a king.

FIDE rules (FIDE is the World Chess Federation) :

6.9 Except where one of the Articles: 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does
not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by
the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot
checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves

USCF rules (USCF is the United States Chess Federation) :

14E: Insufficient material to win on time
The game is drawn even when a player exceeds the time limit if one of the following conditions exists:
14E1: Lone king
14E2: King and bishop or king and knight
Opponent only have a king and bishop or king and knight, and does not have a forced win.
14E3: King and two knights
Opponent has only king and two knights, the player has no pawns, and opponent does not have a forced win.

... so what are these "real life" rules that you mention? They aren't approved either by the World Chess Federation or by your own (USA) chess federation.

yeah idk why the op isnt looking at any of the posts which show the otb rules

The OP's comments on draws not affecting rating points are also incorrect. That would only be true if the two players had exactly the same rating before the game started.

Apparently the world has moved on to make speed chess some sort of "serious" endeavor.   Thanks for the specific updates as to how that has evolved.

Back in the day, we played speed chess as a fun exercise at club meetings or waiting at tournaments.  The rules were really simple and no points were ever assigned to any of it.  Nobody cared about what you were left with, if the flag fell without a mate that player lost.

Which sort of mimics things in life.  Time is the final decider of a lot of things.  Nobody gets a pass because they "coulda, woulda, shoulda".

So, the evolving rules have changed all that.  And as usual, anything can be taken to an extreme limit and screw up the original intent.  Mine is more of a philosophical argument than a technical one.

Not worth my time to change any opinions here.  Like any forum I have ever visited for the past 25 years, when people start getting nasty and personal it is time to just walk away.......

rly

speed chess has been serious for like a decade now

fide has been having official speed chess tournament with rules since like 2001