Draw by timeout vs insufficient material?

You are wrong about US Chess.  Nowhere near the same as FIDE.

Prime examples:  These are draws in FIDE, wins in USCF, assuming Black's flag falls in each case.  (In fact, the second is a draw no matter whose flag falls when - the only possible result is a stalemate of the White King if played out.  FIDE and USCF are NOT the same "except KB, KN, KNN vs No Pawn":

It's a rule which a lot of people think is the fairest. You could also ask "what is the point of having a board and pieces, let's just start the clock going and see who can press it fastest?"

It's a balance between board position and time left. I think it's the fairest way and many others do also.

If you had a TD rule those examples as a win then the TD did not understand rule 14D4.  "No legal moves leading to checkmate by opponent".  They really are draws in US Chess.

PS In the first example Black could not make any legal moves to deliver checkmate because Black was out of time and White had no legal moves to deliver checkmate because Black's only legal move would checkmate White.

neither side can win so its a draw

if your clock runs out, you lost.  You can always kid yourself.  If the situation is a draw, agree to it prior to your clock going out.  In other words, by what logic can your clock running out turn your position from one not being a draw to being a draw?  Must be that new math.

If you need help with time management, I suggest this lesson: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WOWxjesTFY

Both FIDE and US Chess have long had rules saying that when neither player can win the game over the board then the game is a draw and the arbiter/TD can end it immediately.  That avoids idiocies like two players down to just their kings continuing to play until one player runs out of time.  The traditional way of describing that is that they have been transformed from chess players to clock bashing monkeys.

You'd think people would be here to learn.

Some ideas get so firmly in place that only blatant counter-examples can cause a person to question them.  I've gotten used to players claiming that they are stalemated because their King cannot move and that is how their parent or teacher or master-level coach explained the rule (well, that is how they thought the rule was explained).  The blatant counter-example is to point to the board in the starting position, ask if the king can move, and then ask if it is stalemate.  Before I was using something that blatant I would still find players determined to argue that their interpretation was the correct one (and the reason they were so determined was because they still honestly believed it).

Are you being serious ?

Anyone with the slightest knowledge of chess rules knows that K+K is an immediate draw. Arbiter or TD have no say on this issue.

As a TD that has had to stop a LOT of scholastic games between clueless kids, the TD and arbiter most definitely do have a say and are obligated to step in.

PS in the examples provided above the FIDE arbiter or US TD can step in immediately in the second case (forced stalemate) and the moment a flag is called in the first case.

PPS identifying a forced stalemate may be deferred until flagging (to avoid mistaken analysis by the arbiter while the game is still going on).

Rubbish

That may be seen as unnecessary for a high-end tournament of titled players but it is quite necessary for significantly less experienced players, and the rules were written for everybody including beginners, not just the experienced players.

The rules allowing the Arbiter/TD to immediately declare a draw if neither player can win have been around for a long time.  More recently both FIDE and US Chess added the 75-move rule and 5-fold repetition rule to allow that Arbiter/TD to declare a draw event when there are still legal moves allowing one or both players to checkmate the other.  Until that was added there were times when the players would simply continue play long past the 50-move or 3-fold point while trying for a win or, in a few cases, to simply extend the round time.

From a programming standpoint it would be difficult (very difficult?) for Chess.com to handle the no-legal-moves-to-checkmate rule, but if it ever does then it could be programmed to match the FIDE rule (it does not match it right now - and the added complexity in the US Chess rule would make matching the international FIDE rule both easier to do and what a majority of the world would expect).

Then I suggest you spend less time claiming to be a TD and more time handing out chess rule books.

You talk utter garbage.

I'm not bothered in the slightest by your comment about claiming something because I know how many hundreds of rated tournaments I've directed in the US using US rules and how many dozens I've done using FIDE rules (I may only be an FA for FIDE but I do know the rules). It doesn't matter if you make all the insults you want because I will blithely ignore them as immaterial.

I would, however, suggest you actually read the international rules, particularly 5.2.2 (rule 6.2.1.1 explicitly states that 5.2.2 overrides any flag fall).

https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018

Shame you don't understand them.

thats rule of chess u cant change it

You couldn't win because you lacked mating material.

He couldn't win because he ran out of time.

Therefore, nobody wins. A draw.

The post that you are replying to is almost 4 years old. I think in all those years drMike probably figured these things out.