Draw by timeout vs insufficient material?

If it would be impossible to mate, given infinite time and worst play by your opponent, a win condition is nonsensical.

A curious coincidence:

Pretty well everybody who complains about the stalemate rule turns out to be butt-hurt over carelessly dropping half a point to a needless stalemate.

Instead of trying to change the rules of the game, why not just play with a bit more care?

Most of the people complaining about stalemate say that stalemating the opponent should be a win.

If FIDE made that change then a lone king could get a lot of timeout wins (K vs K+aPawn or K vs K+hPawn is an obvious potential stalemate with White Kc1 and Black Ka1 Pa2 as one example).  For that matter, there are a number of possible stalemates even without an a or h pawn on the board (White Kh8, Bh7, Rg7, Pg6, Pf6, promoted Ba2 and Black Kd8 with the moves Ba2g8 Ke8, f7+ Kf8 stalemate).

If people are complaining now about ceding a stalemate draw when they are way ahead in material I have to wonder how they will feel about losing to a lone king.

I tend towards the opinion that it makes more sense that the player stalemating the opponent should lose, not win, if the rules were to be changed to form an alternative variation of chess.

You haven't thought it through. Your opinion would mean that it would just be a race to make meaningless moves faster than the opponent. No self-respecting, serious chess player could agree to such a rule, which would bring the entire game into disrepute in order to please the very weakest players, who don't understand why the rule is as it is. The changes FIDE have made are bad enough and they need to be reversed. They throw FIDE into disrepute as it is, as if they didn't have a bad enough reputation in the first place.

Alright, let’s break it down.

You have a king and a bishop. That is not enough to win. At best, you can only draw.

Your opponent has a king and a rook. That is enough to checkmate you. That is why the game continues.

When your opponent runs out of time, you usually are supposed to win, but only if you have sufficient material to checkmate. You don’t have sufficient material to checkmate.

That’s why you got a draw.

So let me get this right..

If your opponent sees that if he runs out of time it’s a draw then he can just timeout himself and draw the game ?? How’s that fair?

In order for your opponent to even have that option available (Time-out = draw) then HE must still have mating material left while YOU do NOT. 

... otherwise, timing out would LOSE, not draw.

Why in the world would your opponent want a draw when HE still has pieces left and YOU are stuck without any way to play for a win? Shouldn't he be playing for a WIN, instead?

The only time a timeout can garner a draw out of a lost game (and only under chess.com rules, not under FIDE or USchess) is in a position such as the following.  Black to move with White: Nh4, Kh1, Black Kh8, Pg7, Pg6, Ph6, Rh7, Rg8, Bf8 (and other Black pieces that are not able to be moved to attack either h1 or g6).

All three rule sets would give a loss on time if the opponent has at least one pawn and/or at least one Rook/Queen and/or two minor pieces (only exception is if the opponent has K+B+B and both bishops traveled the same squares - either light or dark).

There is the difference between FIDE and USchess rules where USchess will give a win to to the unflagged player with specifically limited material (K+B or K+N) only if it is a forced win while FIDE will give the win if there is any possible helpmate available (for example, in the Nh4/Kh1 scenario above, if Black does not have the Bf8 and flags then USchess will see that the Black rook can be moved from g8 and the mate avoided - draw, while FIDE sees that Black can blunder with h5 and still allow the smothered mate - win).  That difference still does not give any incentive for Black to deliberately run the clock out. If it is a forced loss then flagging would still lose while playing on would give the chance that White could err, and playing on might even result in delivering checkmate on White before running out of time.

In permanently blocked positions (such as White Ke1, Pa4, Pc4, Pf4, Ph6 and Black Ke8, Pa5, Pc5, Pf5, Ph5) USchess and FIDE would give a draw for a timeout while chess.com would give a loss on time of the opponent had enough material to mate after the player without time is reduced to a lone king).

  How is it fair that black can evade forced mate in 2 here (Ng4, h2, Nf2#) by intentionally running out of time?

Under FIDE or USCF rules, he can't.

One uses the qualifier "and does not have a forced win" (USCF 14E), and the other uses "by any possible series of legal moves" (FIDE 6.9).

This position qualifies in either case. If Black runs out of time, he loses.

With those pieces on the board, black gets a time-induced draw only if white runs out of time. Black running out of time would be a loss for black.

Under FIDE rules, Black wins if White times out, White wins if Black times out.

Under USCF rules, it's a draw if White times out, and a White win if Black times out.

Under USCF and FIDE rules (with White to play in the Post #93 position) it is a loss for either player that times out (White has a forced win but not an inevitable win since playing 2 Ke2 and 3 Nh6 allows Black to queen).

Under Chess.com rules after 1 Ng4 White times out Black wins and if Black times out then K+N vs lone K cannot be won (looking at only the non-flagged player's material versus a lone king) and Chess.com awards the draw.

I took another look. Both have sufficient material to theoretically invoke a checkmate (although in white's case the material includes the help of black's pawn to restrict the movement of the black king), so it's a loss for either if they time out.

But in any case, no matter what, you cannot escape a loss by letting yourself time out.  If you get a draw from timing yourself out, it's because the other player didn't have the pieces & position to beat you anyway.

But in this case there isn't a lone king; black's pawn actually helps white by restricting the black king's movement. K+N vs K + p can result in a checkmate for either.

And that is why there is a difference.  Chess.com ignores all of the flagged player's material but the King and then sees if the opponent can win.  That way Chess.com does not have to analyze every flagged game.

That is also why White loses on Chess.com when flagging in:  White Ke1 Ph4, Pf4, Pc4, Pa4; Black Ke8 Ph5, Pf5, Pc5, Pa5.  USCF and FIDE would rule it a draw because there are no moves leading to mate.  Chess.com would give Black the win because K+4P have a possible win against a lone King.

Ha, you've basically described bullet and blitz games. Not to devaluate your words, you are completely correct and thats why i find those game modes absurd.

Only under FIDE rules!

NOT under USCF rules. Jesus Christ, people... THE TIME-OUT RULES ARE DIFFERENT between FIDE and USCF. I just quoted them, above. Wake up and smell the Pawns!

Chess.com does NOT use FIDE rules. FIDE rules have ZERO application on this web-site.  It uses a rules-set that is different from either FIDE or USCF, but is closer to USCF rules.

FIDE and USCF are different but the key in the 1 Ng4 h2 2 Nf2# position is that White has a forced mate with K+N vs K+P and thus can still win on time in a USCF event (using the forced win clause of 14E).  Put the Black King and Pawn a square farther back and a flag by Black would be a loss in FIDE (helpmate exists) but only a draw in USCF (helpmate exists but forced mate does not exist and White has only K+N).