A potential hole in the "timeout vs insufficient checkmate material"

There are close to 2 million games played today and it would be a safe bet that less than a tenth of a percent of games that end in timeout would fall into a similar example as the first post. It's probabaly less than one percent of timeouts that could have been claimed as a win under FIDE rules.

I would still say it is very rare that a timeout gives a draw in a position where the win was forced. 

Well, it still is pretty rare, but most advanced endgame books feature king and knight v king and rook pawn, which I believe is a forced win for the knight if the pawn is past the midline and the pieces are positioned correctly.  It's very difficult to force a win but I've seen people walk into it.  The game I won was almost unbelievable.  Winning an endgame down three pawns with only a knight is probably a one in a million shot.  They guy drops a pawn, gets his bishop forked, gets his king trapped in front of his own rook pawn, and gets mated.  The other guy was probably throwing up afterword

I'm wondering if chess.com would review a game like that and reverse it??? MOD???? Naw, not likely.

Here are several positions which could be holes in the rule:

In the last one, black has no way to stop mate. However, if black's time ran out, what would the result be? What if white's time ran out before he could make the move BG7#? Maybe white should be given the win in either case? In the 1st one, black could actually MATE white if he promoted the pawn to a rook, bishop or knights, and moved his king and the underpromoted piece to the corner. White can also mate black if black lets him promote to a queen. If either players time runs out, what should the result be?

Awdiш

Awdiш

amazing concept

"blacks horse" #6uy, please. 

   under house rules ludclr

You mean something like this I gues.

But what about this? Can white claim a draw here because there is no mate possible.