Since when did this rule change?

Played this in bullet Chess, and had a similar scenario before (a long while ago) where I was in a similarily superior position to my opponent at the end of that game, but he was awarded a win when I ran out of time. The reason before was that there is sufficient material to win a game with only B+K if the opponent has certain other material on the board. Assuming worst play, mating the white King in the corner doesn't make this game beyond black, and as a result of my opponent running out of time I believe I should have been awarded a win.

Having spoken to a Fide Arbiter about the previous scenario, I was told that the position would be awarded as a win for black for the above reasons, and that if white wanted a draw then they would need to stop the clocks and request adjudication by an arbiter.

My question is, when did this rule change on Chess.com, and why?

White can still be mated, so you lost.

Was this rule ever any different?

I don't think you understood the question actually. Correct me if I am wrong by AMcHarg was black in this game and didn't get the win when WHITE ran out of time, even though it is possible for BLACK to win.

Then what he has said is that previously he found himself in a similar situation but from the same perspective as WHITE in this case and when HE ran out of time, the other guy was awarded a win.

Clearly in an official chess match if a game is winable and the opponent runs out of time (as in the case above) then the win should be awarded. In the case above it wasn't, although as things used to be on CHESS.com it would have been. AMcHarg is simply asking why and when this change was made?

Hope that helps!

i believe you have a point, andrew. Did you check to see if the rule has changed?

i even remember the last time when the win was awarded against you

According to USCF rule 14E2, "The game is drawn even when a player exceeds the time limit if... Opponent has only king and bishop or king and knight, and does not have a forced win."

It's one thing to not expect best play.  It's another to assume the opponent will promote one of his pawns to an opposite colored bishop and then put his king in the corner with the bishop next to it.

in the previous case, it was argued that the position could still be won by the player with the lesser material by means of a 'helpmate'.

Seems to me like the same thing, but with a different result.

Then that is a clear difference with FIDE rules.

There are two USCF rules, 14E, "Insufficient mating material" , and 14H "Insufficient losing chances" (similar to FIDE 6.9 and 10.2a).  Insufficient losing chances requires adjudication by an arbiter before time expires.  This is not possible on Chess.com as there are no arbiters.  A few months ago, Chess.com incorporated insufficient losing chances into their "insufficient mating material rule."  It's not perfect, but it is a resonable way to deal with the problem.

Here is the original topic, posted in November 2010. Note that my stance has changed since then and I now disagree with my stance in the original topic.

As can be seen when comparing these two games, the scenario is virtually identical, yet the outcomes are different. Have Chess.com specifically programmed a change in the rules or what ... ? I am rather confused.

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/it-isnt-even-winnable

Sorry, I didn't get my comments changed before you made your post.  To answer your question, Chess.com changed their programming.

Yeah, it's one of those things... the USCF calls it a draw, FIDE a win for black. Whether or not it's fair... meh. I don't really care to start a flame war about it.

The USCf has a clause called "Insufficient Losing Chances" which FIDE is morally against. FIDE has repeatedly ruled that a flag is a loss if the opponent's position can be won "with most unskilled counterplay", while the USCF calles it a draw if the flagged player's position, played by a C class player, could be easily drawn against a master. This of course is a subjective rule, but it's still a notch better than "if the position looks drawn (or won for the player who flagged), then it's a draw.

The insufficient losing chances must be claimed BEFORE the flag falls, though.  (Rule 14H4.)  It's a different rule from the one giving the automatic draw for only having a bishop or knight, and not one that could be reasonably implemented here.

 Both USCF Rule 14H, "Insufficient losing chances," and FIDE Article 10.2a require a draw to be claimed before the flag falls.  Once the flag falls, Rule 14E or Article 6.9 apply.  FIDE and USCF do disagree on what constitutes "insufficient mating material."  The USCF lists specific conditions for drawn games; FIDE requires that it not be possible to mate by any series of legal moves (may require adjudication by an arbiter).

If you really want to complicate the matter, 14H is only applicable when a clock without a time delay is being used, and, for blitz games, 10.2a is applicable only if there is adequate supervision (an arbiter is observing the game).

 The Chess.com programming deviates from the USCF and FIDE rules because of the absence of arbiters.  As a result, games that would be ajudicated a draw before the flag falls are automatically drawn when the flag falls.  There is a very long thread providing the discussions that went into the program changes.  Unfortunately, I have been unable to find it.

While it is of interest what the precise situation is, it would be sensible not to expend too much energy on what happens when you have only a minor piece left. However it is, is the same for everyone, and can be accounted for appropriately.

Would it not have been advisable for chess.com to inform players there had been a change in the rules?

I see that people are pointing to uscf rules for some sort of justification of the change in rule, but with the absence of an arbiter (or indeed, a claim draw/win button to press), it's simply not compatible with internet chess

 If they didn't, it would have been good of them to do so.  This issue has been raised many times when someone notices that their present game was ruled a draw, while a similar position in an older game was ruled a win.

 You're correct.  So the choices are: ignore the rule, or compromise.  The simplest way to avoid the problem is to play games with increments.