bad rule - insufficient material

Looking at your recent history, it looks like this is the game in question with the final board position with you as White:

This ended in a draw because Black was the player that timed out.  Because Black timed out, Chess.com checks to see how much material White has.  A king and knight is regarded as insufficient material.  So, it looks like the website is registering the outcome as it should.

https://support.chess.com/article/128-what-does-insufficient-mating-material-mean

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-chess-games-can-end-8-ways-explained#insufficient-material

Yes. This is the problem.
But, no- this is a win for white.
I can easyily provide you bad moves from black leading to mate from white and FIDE rule stands that it is the reason why it's a win for white. If you don't belive me, look at Soćko-Foisor 2008 Armageddon game in Nalchik (http://johnchess.blogspot.com/2008/09/armageddon-in-nalchik.html). The arbiters didn't remember this rule either at the beggining...

And no, it's not April Fool's joke

Chess.com doesn't include the possibility of "helpmates", probably because it would be really difficult to program.  

Chess.com (and plenty of other online chess sites) do not necessarily follow FIDE rules. 

Here is a excerpt from this official Chess.com support article which covers a circumstance similar to this situation to illustrates that online sites may differ from "official" OTB rulesets: https://support.chess.com/article/128-what-does-insufficient-mating-material-mean

"Some of the above situations [of insufficient material including a lone king and knight] might be treated slightly differently in FIDE or USCF tournaments, or on other sites.

In the specific case of two knights versus a lone king, USCF rule specifies that the game is drawn because there is no forced mate. The FIDE rule specifies that the game is drawn only when there is no possible mate, and so would not include two knights vs a king as an automatic draw, since it is technically possible to checkmate the king if the king 'helps' you by making specific moves to allow the checkmate. However, Chess.com follows the USCF rule in this case, and calls two knights insufficient mating material because the checkmate can not be forced."

I tend to side more with the chess.com policy of insufficient material, as the FIDE rule seems to question the intelligence of the players with their 'possible mate' concept

Now I understand that. Didn't read chess.com explanation of this fact. So, thanks for pointing it for me... @Alramech

Still, I think it would be better if the rules would be the same for all players on the entire world.
And I like FIDE's understanding of "insufficient matterial" rule.

What part of it do you like? How would these 'potential mates' arise on a board between two top players? The only redeeming factor is that it highlights the importance of time in competitive tourneys, forcing players to be faster in pushing their advantage

That is not quite accurate.  FIDE says it's a draw if there is no possible mate.  Chess.com says it's a draw if there is no possible mate after dropping the opponent's army to a bare king.  US Chess is closer to FIDE but has exceptions for the unflagged player being down to K+N, K+B or K+2N with no pawns on the other side (in those three cases the mate needs to be forced).  Note that FIDE and US Chess may rule a game a draw while Chess.com will rule it a win for the unflagged player (simple example:  White Pa4/Pb5/Pc4/Pd5/Pe4/Pf5/Pg4/Ph5/Ke1 vs Black Pa5/Pb6/Pc5/Pd6/Pe5/Pf6/Pg5/Ph6/Ke8 where no pawn can move and neither king can capture an opposing pawn so checkmate is impossible but if, for example, all of White's pawn are considered removed per Chess.com then Black can win on time).

For that matter, I would guess that Chess.com would award a win if the opponent flagged even if the opponent's only legal move was to checkmate the unflagged player (a draw per FIDE or US Chess).

This should count as a win for white on chess.com

It doesn't. The site only looks at the material with time has and K+N is insufficient.

Chess.com checks only against a bare king and K+N cannot mate a bare king and rules it a draw.  The Black having a pawn FIDE would award a win regardless of the knight position as long as it isn't already a stalemate.  In this position US Chess would award a win but would award a draw if checkmate was not forced (a special consideration for K+BvsAny or K+NvAny or K+2NvsAnyWithNoPawns).

De gustibus non est disputandum.
The FIDE rule is very clear for me.

Good to know about the differences in chess.com, US Chess and FIDE rules... especially if you are an arbiter... Thank you @jetoba

The FIDE ruling removed the need for an arbiter to make a judgement call; just have to show mate is possible by any series of legal moves. It's an understandable decision, even if the ruling might not be a realistic reflection of what is likely.

That makes me like this principle even more.

It's a lot simpler to show that mate is possible to a human and a little harder to do so programmatically. There was a very long discussion a few years back about how the FIDE implementation could be done but it still had edge cases. Staff decided to keep the implementation it currently has, which is closer to the US Chess method and makes more logical sense, in my opinion, though it still has some edge cases where a forced mate could be called a draw on timeout.

And a few edge cases where a game with checkmate impossible to achieve gets called a win after a time-out.