What would be easier to understand?

Every once in a while, we get confused feedback about games drawn "by insufficient material" in cases like this:

Surely, people say, K + Q is amply sufficient material to checkmate someone, but here Black has run out of time, so it's White's insufficient material that makes this game a draw. (If you didn't already know, it is a rule that you can't win by time-out if you don't have minimum mating material left of the board.)

So what should we say there instead?

Game drawn: Time out with Insufficient Material, or...? Thanks!

I like the suggestion.

Maybe include which side had the time out and/or the insufficient material? I mean, it should be obvious but more information probably can't hurt, assuming it doesn't get too wordy 

I think people are just wanting the person who ran out of time to be declared the loser regardless of other circumstances. This shouldn't be the case in my opinion.

I don't think the current set up is bad...

Game drawn:  Black ran out of time, but White has insufficient material to mate.

(and give a link to the relevant rule.)

Maybe just 'insufficient material defending side' ?

If you change it, whattever will we have to talk about on the forums !

Uh, no.  Firstly, if you want to *reduce* confusion, you write in plain, complete sentences, in a normal word order (subject verb object indirect-object), including all the helpful little words like "has" and "to".  

Secondly, the only way anyone can guess what you mean by 'defending side' is if they already know the rule.  Inventing this new phrase just makes the message *more* confusing.

So the winning side ran out of time. Since the other side has no hope of winning, its a draw.

In other words the other side can't win because they had no material. Its a pretty fair rule, and it applies in chess tournaments irl.