Draw by insufficient material

Hi, I noticed there is a problem with what is regarded as a draw by insufficient material when the time runs out. It's probably done that way by design (i.e. not a bug), but it's wrong. For example, I had a bishop, while opponent had a couple of pawns. Opponent's time ran out, and for some reason a draw was declared. If there were no pawns, then sure, it's a draw. But since the opponent had at least one pawn, the mating position is possible and it should not be a draw. Lone bishop (or even a knight for that matter) can mate against pawns or some of the pieces - it can't be forced in majority of the positions, but that doesn't matter when the time runs out. Or at least it shouldn't matter.

In the situation you have described, this is a special kind of draw by insufficient material rule.  If you look at the game, you will see that the result is marked by "Game drawn by timeout vs insufficient material".  This is by design.

Black ran out of time which normally results in a loss for Black.  However, White had insufficient material for mating.  Therefore, the game results in a draw.

I hope this clarifies the rule.

You can find more detail in the official support article: https://support.chess.com/article/268-my-opponent-ran-out-of-time-why-was-it-a-draw

It doesn't clarify it, because in reality it is not insufficient material for a checkmate.

I even found an article on this site about similar checkmates: https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-lonely-bishop-chekmate

It should be a win, because there still is a possibility to checkmate an opponent.

 

The site does not use the FIDE implementation of mate possible by any series of legal moves for determination of whether it's a win or draw on timeout. It only looks at the material the side with time has, disregarding the material the other side has, in most cases. A lone bishop can't mate, so it's a draw.

 

The site uses something more similar to the US Chess implementation.

 

This is the FIDE Law of Chess:
"6.9      
Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by that 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."
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018 
This is poorly implemented on this site.
A solution is to play with increment so you have time to prove a draw by 3 fold repetition or the 50 moves rule.

Oh ok, that explains it then. Thanks.

To be honest, FIDE rules make more sense to me in that regard, but it's probably just because those are the rules I'm used to.

I sort of see the flag as a point when the flagged player suddenly decides to play all worst possible moves, and then the decision about the final result is based on that premise. This is then valid in all cases and there's nothing unclear. If a win is possible with legal moves, then it's a win.

US rules are a bit more vague, where this sort of still is the case, but it requires a forced win to be available with lone knight, bishop or two knights. And chess.com just decides that lone bishop or knight (I wonder now about two knights) are not enough to win.

Got it. I don't like it, but I got it.

FIDE: Insufficient Material is defined as no mate is possible, even help mates.

US Chess:  Insufficient Material is defined as no forced mate is possible.

Chess.com: Insufficient Material is defined by no forced mate is possible to a bare king.  A king and knight will be insufficient material, even if there is a forced mate on the board due to how the opponents pawns are placed. 

FIDE rules are great for arbiters, so they don't have to make any kind of judgement calls on if mate is possible or not. It's trivial to see if it's possible to set up a mating position with given pieces.

 

US Chess rules, are a little more logical in most cases, since no player is going to make the absolute worse moves in a position to lose, but there are positions where the TD will have to use their judgement or enlist a stronger player to adjudicate. 

 

It's programmatically possible to do either implementation, though a simple algorithm is likely to miss edge cases in either. The site originally decided that the US Chess implementation was easier and more logical, so went that route.

That's why I don't like US rules - it's not just "no forced mate possible", because in most of the usual situations when time runs out, no forced mate is possible. It's "no forced mate possible" only when you have a lone knight, bishop or two knights. It doesn't make much sense why this is an exception to other situations, but it is what it is I guess.

And chess.com is just a bit of lazy programming by the looks of it, neither here nor there.

But here's the thing: It's not more logical.

E.g. a lone pawn against 8 pawns wins if the side with 8 pawns runs out of time. But at the same time, a lone bishop against 8 pawns is not a win according to US rules. In both cases, there is no forced mate possible, both would require deliberate bad moves by the losing side in a similar manner in order to lose the game. Why treat them differently?

There's absolutely no logic to it when you think about it.