i was playing this game on live chess and the game was a DRAW due to insufficient material

is there any such rule if yes whats that

If you can't mate then you cannot win on time...it is a draw instead.

Queen and 4 pawns up... yeah that's a draw?

ROFL no way that's a draw.

Honestly though, black easily wins in the above game.  Since with a queen you can force a checkmate.  Draw by insufficient material, only happens when both sides don't have enough pieces left to force a checkmate.  The most simple of these being when both players only have a king left. 

This doesn't look right to me, did white run out of time, or black?  If white did black should win, if black ran out, I could see that a draw would make sense there.  I am not sure of the rules, but if white were in a position to win on time with insufficient material to mate, then that makes sense to me.

Hm, strange I looked at the game in your records and it is shown as a draw by insufficient material...  looks like some bug with the site.

I see jruckus's point.  Maybe Black ran out of time and that should be a win for White; however he has only a king, so it's a draw (lack of sufficient material).

No bug--black ran out of time (hence the last move of game being whites) but since White CANNOT win the game was declared a draw.

The FIDE Laws of Chess

 (See also this discussion http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/draw-on-time)

If a player has a K, K+N or K+B against a lone king, the game is a draw. In this case the other guy must have run out of time. Since you could not checkmate him, however, the game is declared a draw

Well you live and learn.

In the ruleset of the US Chess Federation, this is known as an "Insufficient losing chances" draw.

This applies to certain games where 1) you are running out of time and yet 2) you have a position where even a weaker player has a good chance of beating a master. If this situation crops up in an OTB game, you may summon a tournament director and make an Insufficient Losing Chances claim. If the claim is granted, the game is adjudicated as a draw. The logic, as the original example suggests, is that often one side clearly has no chance at a win.

However, and this relates to scarjo's point, in the era of digital timekeeping the preferred route in the USCF is for a tournament director to substitute a "delay" clock--one where the seconds do not begin to count down until perhaps five seconds have passed. This way, the player making the claim will have five seconds per move, which should allow him to conclude the game normally. With a delay clock in place, a player with a winning position can't make an Insufficient Losing Chances claim.

So you can, in the future, opt for games with an increment, though a 5 5 game is probably enough to ensure that you can convert a dominating position into a win. 

I don't think that this hostility is warranted--the clock is part of the game, and if you play any blitz chess you must be prepared to lose on time even when you have a superior position. That's the way things are.

Oh I entirely agree. What I was saying is that a win on time is still a win--while I can be upset that I let myself flag in a winning position, it's certainly not wrong for my opponent to get the win, or even to play with an eye to my dwindling clock.

All the time at my blitz club I find myself saying, "OK, so now I have a winning position. All I have to do now is find a way to win it." And if I can't do that in the amount of time I have left, I deserve to lose.