⛔(What THEY Don't Want You To Know About) Insufficient Material vs Timeout Draws

(Note: all links within this article should open in a new tab so you can open them without interrupting the rest of the article)

Okay, maybe the title of this blog is a little dramatic; you got me, but if you're now reading this, I got you. All kidding aside, I'm not being dishonest with the title. For as far as I can tell, the information I'm going to share here is not readily available anywhere on Chess.com.

We're speaking of course about Insufficient Material vs Timeout Draws. I plan to touch on the difference in rulings between the two major governing bodies of chess (USCF and FIDE), which one Chess.com falls in line with, some background and examples, the technical limitations that arise because of it, as well as attempt to compare the two objectively. To get the first two out of the way, in regards to whether it is declared a draw or loss for the flagging side, USCF requires that mate be forced for the side deemed to have insufficient material, while FIDE requires that mate be legally possible. Chess.com follows USCF's ruling on this matter.

On to background and examples, if you are currently unfamiliar with what a ruckus this ruling can cause, I myself first learned about it thanks to [this video] which is from a FIDE regulated event. I share this video for two reasons. One, it demonstrates the emotional nature and varying degrees of what one might consider "fair." Two, it serves to immediately negate any argument of "How likely, realistic, or important is this anyways?" as the video shows it to be very serious even at, or maybe more precisely, more-so at, the highest levels.

I was most recently reminded of this rule courtesy of [this puzzle] which will serve as our example throughout. When referencing this puzzle, we will be assuming that Black is attempting to win by starting with 1.Qxa8+, to which White will reply with 1...Kxa8, but after Black plays 2.Kb6, White will not play the forced 2...a7 and instead opt to let their time expire. If you remember this puzzle from ~4 months ago, you likely remember the debate in the comments over how it would pan out if the position were reached during an actual game here on Chess.com. We saw people saying that because mate was forced, Black would win should White flag. This is what I became convinced of myself upon reading through Chess.com's articles [1] [2] [3] regarding these rules. Yet, there were still those who stood firm in their claims that it would be determined a draw, regardless of the forcing nature of the line.

Due to the discrepancy in what I was reading in Chess.com's articles and what people were saying, I really began digging. Absolutely sure I missed something, I re-read the three articles I could find regarding the rule, but they provided no additional insight. This is when I learned, only through chatting directly with Chess.com support staff, of the technical limitation which means Chess.com has no choice except to declare it a draw. In our example puzzle, White truly could accept the Queen trade prior to letting their clock run out in order to achieve a draw. You see, in over the board play, it's easy for the USCF to have an arbiter make a decision regarding whether mate is forced or not in order to declare an outcome. This means that our "virtual arbiter," here on Chess.com would have to analyze until it found mate, or didn't. So, at what point would it say "I haven't looked at everything, but I've looked deep enough, I think, and found no mate, yet, so this is a draw." Without getting into tablebases for more specific positions, this is the technical limitation in a nutshell.

Moving beyond the Chess.com-specific limitation, it's apparently impossible to find a reason why the difference exists in the first place. If I could find the why, this would be a very different article. For now, I can only speculate and I like to play devil's advocate in these situations, so I'll do that here in an attempt to justify USCF's ruling. Hopefully it comes across as an honest attempt at seeing and sharing the other side's point of view. My side being that FIDE's rules are impartial while USCF's rules are biased. If you side with USCF and I miss anything or unintentionally misconstrue some things, please let it be known in the comments.

Scenario: White KN vs Black KP where Black's pawn is an outside pawn and Black flags while White does not have forced checkmate.


USCF Rules Outcome: Draw by Insufficient Material vs Timeout
Checkmate needs to be forced for White to win
USCF Why Speculation:
1a. White lost all winning chances when they reached insufficient material while not in a position already capable of forcing checkmate.
1b. Black lost all winning chances when they failed to maintain any time on their clock.
1c. White already cannot win, so upon a flag from Black, neither can win, therefore neither should lose.
2. Black would never allow themselves to be checkmated in such a position.
3. If it weren't for the existence of Black's own pawn, mate isn't even legally possible so how do you hold their own material against them when White would be considered as having insufficient material if Black only had a lone King?
4. The board is more important than the clock — I feel like I'm putting words in their mouth with this one, but I've also come to this conclusion multiple times from varying aspects. So, I do feel there is a shred of truth to this when attempting to follow USCF's logic.

FIDE Rules Outcome: White Wins by Timeout
Checkmate needs to be legally possible for White to win
FIDE Why Speculation:
1a. White has winning chances because they maintained sufficient mating material as mate is legally possible.
1b. Black lost all winning chances when they failed to maintain any time on their clock.
1c. White does have at least one winning chance, so upon a flag from Black, Black should lose.
2. We cannot speculate about one's play especially when they are low on time. In these instances, so low on time, they flagged. If we are going to speculate, would Black truly still have sufficient material had they used their clock better throughout the game?
3. Players' own material enables checkmates all the time. Black should force their own pawn off the board, or use it to deliver mate against a poorly placed KB (not possible vs KN), or promote it, to draw or win, prior to flagging.
4. The board and the clock are two halves of a whole.

In short, not only does FIDE have the fairest ruling on this matter, but Chess.com can bypass any technical limitations by choosing to adopt the ruling set forth by FIDE. The technical limitation is removed because only a handful of checks need to be performed by our virtual arbiter in order to determine if mate is legally possible and then deliver an outcome. I'm sure Chess.com strives to be all-inclusive, which one would think included offering up the truest to form chess experience, as known worldwide. Why then, would they opt to follow US specific rules over the international governing body of chess, FIDE?

Thanks for reading! Please, share your thoughts and feelings on this in the comments. Do you not care one way or the other, so long as you're aware of the exact ruling beforehand? Or do you believe one of the rules to be more logical while the other isn't as fair?