What is "Time out vs insufficient material"?

A draw by "Time out vs insufficient material"

I was black(the time left is almost 0 second), and it was checkmate in 1.

But as soon as I move my piece, the result was a draw.

I am wondering why I did not lose on time OR win by checkmate.

Chess.com follows closest to USCF rules, but not exactly.

USCF Rules state that a K, K and B, K and N, or K and 2N with opponent having no pawns (pieces don't matter, only pawns), is considered insufficient mating material, UNLESS mate can be forced.

That "unless" part is missing on Chess.com, which sux because you could have force mate and your opponent times out and draws.

What the rule says is that, unlike FIDE, where any series of legal moves leading to mate means you win if your opponent runs out of time, here instead you must have "Sufficient Mating Material" in order to win on time.

That can be a Pawn (since it can promote), or any combination other than the 4 listed above.  This includes if White has KQRRBBNNPPPPPPPP and Black only had KP, and White runs out of time, Black wins.

However, if Black has just a King and Knight, and White runs out of time, then it's declared a draw by Time vs Insufficient Mating Material.

Here are examples where it would be a win in USCF but a draw here (You hear me Chess.com Programmers - YOU NEED TO FIX THIS!)

In the first diagram, Black can stall and Chess.com would declare it a draw while USCF and FIDE would both declare it a win for White if Black ran out of time because Black has no legal move but 1...Kh8 when 2.Kf7 and after either 2...e6 or 2...e5, 3.Bg7 is Checkmate - All 100% totally FORCED!

In the second diagram, Black can stall and Chess.com would declare it a draw while USCF and FIDE would both declare it a win for White if Black ran out of time because Black's only legal move is 1...h2 after which 2.Ng3 is Checkmate - Again, All 100% totally FORCED!

(Note:  Not sure how the diagrams got flipped, but the "First" diagram is the one on the bottom, the "Second" diagram is the one on the top) 

How is a queen insufficient material

Black lost on time in that position. White doesn't have enough pieces to mate, so game was declared a draw. 

I thought running out of time should make you lose no matter what your opponent has--shouldn't it?

I just had a game where my opponent lost on time, but had a king and queen. I had only a king. And yet it was a draw due to "time out vs insufficient material". 

Is the logic that I couldn't possibly have won, and so it is a draw?

(The thing is, I *did* win.)

Except you didn't win. If your opponent loses on time, and there is no way for you to ever get checkmate, then it's a draw. Those are the rules, a timeout is not equivalent to getting mated.

If the opponent whom was far behind and on the run ran out of time and not the one threatening checkmate via Q+K vs K, how is that not a loss?

The person with the K and Q ran out of time. The person with the K not in checkmate did not run out of time.

From what I can read, it looks like those are just the rules. Somehow, not being able to win (insufficient material) in infinite time is considered when an opponent runs out of actual time in a timed game. If they're the rules I'll accept them but I find this one silly. Maybe there's a point of view on them that I haven't considered yet?

This has had me scratching my head as well. Quite often vs the computer it will draw the game with the claim "draw by insufficient material" this usually happens when I've gobbled up all of Black's pieces / pawns and it's just a king. Which is totally BS because I generally have more than enough material to mate.

Unfortunately, you have used up all of your other key resource (time) in order to obtain that material advantage.

If you're running out of time and aren't sure how to deliver a checkmate within the time you have left, you need to make sure that you do take all of their remaining pieces, because if you leave your opponent with a pawn when you run out of time, you will lose the game no matter how great your material advantage is.

one player timeouted and the other one can't win anyway

Yeah, I get it. I just disagree with it. Running out of time should be losing, independent of what the other player has, especially in blitz or bullet. 

I agree, running out of time should be losing. I saw a basketball game once where the lead was one, the losing side had possession of the ball and was headed down court. The ball was passed to a player who was wide open, allowing him a very, very easy slam dunk for two points, and the win. But, he was 1.5 seconds too late. Time ran out before he caught the ball and dunked it. I dont think it would make sense to call the game a tie just because one side ran out of time. But I guess that's why the rules are different for chess than they are for basketball.

That's a great comparison. Well done.

Maybe it's not a great example, but the point is time running out DID equal a team losing. They didn't lose based on skill or talent or luck, they lost because the winning play was about a second too late. And I suppose there could have been many, many clocks. The clock that mattered is the one that said they were about a second too late.

It's not a PERFECT comparison. But it underscores how uncommon it is for additional considerations to be made after time has run out in order to determine the outcome of the game.

This is correct. 

White was lucky to save that draw on time.

Black was lucky (or more correctly-good, clever) that white had no pawns left, or else black would have lost the full point on time.

A fair draw. 

Chess is about finding the best moves, and that takes time. Black invested too much time to get winning advantage. White invested less time, didnt find so good moves, but was saved by the bell.

@Djonni, I see your point. But I key in on "black lost on time." I think that is more important than material preservation. 

In other words, I think you can lose by running out of time or getting checkmated, and nothing else should be considered.

But you make a reasonable point: White couldn't win, and Black didn't win. In that view, a draw is at least an arguable outcome. 

Thanks for the debate folks.