K + P vs K and Time Out

Since I generally play longer time controls, I've never run into this myself, so I'm curious what the rule is in this case, both here on Chess.com and official tournament rules.

Scenario: White has K and one Pawn, Black has lone K.  Position is such that White cannot force a win.  For example:

Now this position is properly a Draw.  However, suppose Black is low on time, so White insists on shuffling pieces around to run out the clock.  Note that with the Pawn being able to advance 4 spaces, that means up to 200 moves before the 50-move Draw rule comes into effect.

So if Black's flag drops, is this a Win (since White can technically win by Queening the Pawn) or Draw, since anyone with the most basic knowledge of the game knows that White cannot force the win?

I hate the though of a player being able to win a dead drawn position through 200 moves of pointlessly shuffling (virtual) wood...

Yes, it would be and should be a win. The moves to draw are easy to find, so if Black loose on time it is OK.

But personally I would probably propose the draw unless I disliked the player playing Black. 

The problem is:

1) We're not talking about speed-moving through a 10 or 20 move sequence, we're talking about up to TWO HUNDRED MOVES where an error could cost the game.

2) White can pre-move without risk, while Black has to respond accurately, meaning Black will likely use up at least 4 times as much time over those 200 moves.  All for a game that is technically drawn.

Of course, this is one of the reasons I never play less than 10 min...to me Chess is a game of strategy, not dexterity...I hate when it gets reduced to a contest of who can physically move their mouse faster (judging by the number of players who only play Bullet, there are many out there who disagree with me lol).  I'm similarly irked by players who insist on shuffling around in a dead drawn K+R vs K+R endgame waiting for the other player to either blunder or flag.

These sorts of endgames are what the increment was invented for. That is, in most proper tournaments, the time control will specify that you get a certain number of seconds added to your clock for each move made. Or it may specify a delay instead of an increment, in which case, you have an initial grace period of a certain number of seconds each move before your clock starts to tick down.  (The difference between these two is that, in an increment system, if you play faster than an increment, your available time can go back up, whereas, in a, say, five-second delay system, if you move within two seconds, you don't get to "bank" the extra three, as you would if it were an increment.)

A fair point...White has 5 squares than defend the pawn, Black has 4 reasonable defending position, so technically that's 20 position, or 40 if you account for whose move, so a determined computer could probably go 50 moves without repetition before pushing the pawn, but human players would likely hit a repetition sequence at some point, especially if Black is looking for it.  Still a lot of moves to confirm a dead drawn position.

of course, there is also draw by repetition

It's not a dead draw. Black can lose the game by making one mistake.Of course, a good player with enough time would force a draw, but in a timed game if black runs out of time without forcing the draw then they lose.

Whatever anyone's opinion on the desired outcome, there is no way to separate an "obvious draw" from an "enforceable draw" by any criterion that can be explained to an engine. So engines will always choose between "a list of material balances considered draw" (insufficient material) or "running a process to see if mate is possible at all by any play sequence" (impossible mate). On both conditions, the diagram in #1 will be declared winnable for K+P.

The best weapons to achieve draws against reluctant opponents / timeouts are "time increments" (post#5), triple repetition and 50-move rules. There are also the recently added automatic 5 repetitions and 75 move rules.

Btw, engines are not currently capable of detecting "impossible mate" but in the future they will - certainly with a high degree of reliability in practical game positions.

Also contrary to OP assertion you CAN pretty much premove this whole position as black. As long as you’re not moving back when not necessary there’s basically no scenario where white can get in front of the pawn and grab the opposition. I would say 10-15 seconds (no increment) is more than enough time to hold this from the initial position even if white tries to prolong things as much  as possible. 

That is the reason I never play without increment.

Btw, just occurred to me. A fair way to get to triple repetition / 50 move draws is to make them "semi-automatic" which is halfway between the current 50-move / 3-rep rule where the draws must be claimed and the 75-move / 5-rep rule  where the draws are automatic.

How does it work? The player gets the option (checkbox) where he relegates all draw claims to the interface. He can check or uncheck the box at any time but while it is checked the interface makes a draw claim for him whenever the rules grant it. It's a preclaim similar to a premove but without expiration. This is very helpful in extreme time pressure when you can't check your draw-rights on every move.

Or does this already exist? I guarantee you it will within 25 years.

Note that the semi-automat makes the 75-move and 5-fold repetition automats redundant but these were never needed for players anyway. Only game interfaces require them to control the duration of games and guard tournament schedules. Also note that each player must have his own preclaim checkbox. Players need not synchronize on their preference.

These are recent rules added to the FIDE laws to accomodate games run under computer interfaces such as in chess.com. These interfaces may now be programmed to automatically terminate games when the same position occurs for the 5th time or 75 moves were played without capture or pawn move. Before these rules existed a game could continue forever or for as long as no player claimed a draw on the basis of 3 repetitions or 50 moves without essential progress.

Note that a human arbiter should do the same as a computer interface but he is unlikely to be in a position to do so, simply because such events mainly happen under extreme time pressure. Counting moves and positions is easy for a machine but undoable for an arbiter when the game unfolds at rocket speed.