Someone please explain how this is a draw

I just played a match of chess, and the following situation occured where my opponent lost on time. I was white in the position when he/she ran out of time:

But even if I don't have a guaranteed mate, checkmate is possible (although it can only be done with a crappy opponent)

the chess rules clearly state that if your opponent runs out of time and you have no means of checkmating him, its a draw. But checkmate is possible...

But i have enough material to checkmate him

Please post a link to the Official FIDE and USCF chess rules website, thank you for answering

It's really stupid, but USCF rules aren't free. You have to buy a book.

Anyway, as far as I know chess.com doesn't use either set of rules. They use rules that are easy to program... and it's very hard to program something that checks whether mate is possible via a series of any legal moves. It's much easier to program a rule like "one minor piece plus no pawns = insufficient material."

ok, but thats kinda wrong...

Yeah it's wrong, but I think that's how all online chess sites work.

For USCF, that would be a draw, since there is no way to force a checkmate, only obtain a checkmate. 

For FIDE, it would be a win, since there is a way to obtain a checkmate, even if isn't forced. 

thx for answering

Here is an address for the USCF rules.  14E is the applicable rule.  

http://www.uschess.org/docs/gov/chessrules/US_Chess_Rule_Book-%20Online_Only_Edition_v7.1-1.2.11-7.19.19.pdf

Well I believe the AI determines that there really isn't enough material on the board to in general get anything higher then a draw. Sure if the exact moves are made you get a mate with out hitting the 50 move rule but it very rarely happens.

I'm pretty sure there are no chess sites that use AI to determine whether a position is a win or draw once time runs out. It's just hard coded that pawnless + 1 minor is not enough.

There were extensive discussions about this 10 years ago when the Chess.com policy was adopted.  At that time, there were FIDE rules, USCF rules, rules after the flag fell (insufficient material), and rules before the flag fell (insufficient losing chances) that were considered.  In the end, Erik opted for a simple approach because he didn't feel that the programming effort was worth it.

Most computer coding in some way includes AI coding which means a computer can make decisions without human intervention. AI is almost everywhere in coding as computers are acting on their own. Alexa used by and created by Google is completely AI and Thank God they are. A lot has changed in 10 years.

Millions of games run out of time every day. I doubt there's an associated hardware cost applied to each of them for AI to determine the losing chances. That seems like an impractical thing to do. Not to mention people would be confused when positions that are very similar do not have the same outcome, so for that reason too it seems impractical.

Well sure there are lots of areas where the old standard are still being used but in certain areas are being helped by AI. That is the hard part is incorporating areas that are computer driven using AI and hard coding based on set parameters.  

It actually wouldn't be as bad as it seems. 

It would only be really be run in places where there could be a chance, where there is few pieces, and stockfish isn't that heavy. 

It is more a case of things being "good enough" rather than doing it right.