How did I get an insuffiicient material Draw verdict when I had a queen and a horse (yes I call them horses)?

I checkmated my opponent with my next move, so how does that constitute insufficient material?

You ran out of time, he had insufficient material, so instead of you losing on time, you get a draw.

Ahhhhh. good call, Scott

If his opponent had had even 1 pawn, the game would have been ruled a victory for white.

You ran out of time.

He had insufficient material to win the game.

Therefore, it was a draw. 

Your opponent has probably started another thread somewhwere that says "My opponent ran out of time... WHY DIDN'T I WIN???"

Or at least that's how these things normally go.

Well, surely then I should have lost. Regardless if he has insufficient material to win the game, if I ran out of time before checkmating him, he should have won. I'm not that fussed about it. I just thought I would mention it.

I also just like the term "insufficient material".

Na that's not the rules, search insufficient material in the box on the right, there are 5 threads a week.

I don't much care for rules. That's why I call Knights Horses!

Giddyup boy! Go forward for a bit and then go to the side.

I've found that in real life, horses don't really move in that way.

But then in real life, Bishops probably don't move diagonally all the time either.

Do you just move the horses and bishops around wherever you like?

This suggests that you do:

Perhaps it's not rules in particular that you don't much care for, just that particular one.

Draw by insufficient material?  That's for babies.  What if your opponent blunders?  No one ever won a game by drawing, play on!

I was refering to real horses and real Bishops, not the chess ones.

And I was just trying to be funny.

You chess people don't seem to have much of a sense of humour.

And yeah, Wafflemaster. I never quit. I treat this game like football or rugby. You play your best until the final whistle blows. Like Wales today against New Zealand in the rugby. They had no chance of coming back and winning, but they played as if they did, and it made for very entertaining viewing. I find it insulting when people quit on this site just because they lost their Queen or something, and worst of all are the people who don't resign, but just disconnect and make you wait even though they have no intention of continuing. That's disrespectful and unsporting in my view.

Just stick around (it's like a Vulcan Convention around here sometimes).

And I find it exactly the opposite.  If you want to do something to kill the next six months or so, read all the many many many many many threads in the archives re this very same tedious and thoroughly awful subject.

Hey ! Another set of posts that would be right at home in my thread on " Silly Rules in Chess " ( and of course: Go Horsey Go ! ).   

Goodness! So many replies so quickly.

This internet thing really seems to be catching on.

Even in niche markets such as chess discussion forums (wonder why that is?)

When I was young, my Dad bought a chess board for my brother and myself, but he didn't play himself, so he never taught us the rules. For years we moved our horses two squares forward and two to the side. Maybe we should bring in a new version of chess where that is the rule. Because I might be quite good at it.

Why would u resign down a Queen and a couple of rooks ? You have those horsies to ride around the board creating all kinds of forks.