faulty ending draws

WElcome to my post... it's my first one so plz be nice  anyways

On live chess i was encountering my opponent who had a knight and king and i had two pawns and king. However, i lost on time and then it said i lost, surely there is something faulty cause it must be a draw!

Please help me answer this and thankyou for reading this post!

White can still win in this position with careless play by black. Perhaps that is why you lost.

You think your situation is bad ?  My wife recently couldnt ran out of time in a game in which she had K+Q vs lone K and guess what ?  She lost !!  Ofcourse this is utter HOGWASH but until something is done to deal with such nonsense all we can do is complain. In an otb game it would have been ruled a draw.

1.Nf5+ Kh2 2.Ke3 Kh1 3.Kf2 h2 4.Ng3#.

White can still checkmate, so black can still lose on time.

Reb, was that here on chess.com? We've seen so many people ask here what a draw by "insufficient material" is that I can't believe that it didn't work. Or did they break it in the new live chess?

It is still winnable for white in this position as Scarbiac suggested but it's not a fair result to assume that because it's possible then it would happen.  In reality, an OTB game would be ruled a draw by an arbiter.

No, it wouldn't, not if the flag has fallen. If you wanted a draw, you should have offered or claimed it before your flag fell; trying to play for a win in this position and still wanting a draw after your flag fell is wanting to eat your cake and have it too.

The rule says you lose the game if your flag falls, unless it is not possible for the opponent to deliver checkmate, with any legal series of moves. Whether it would happen or not does not come into it.

Aye, that's right Scarblac. Black has the option to stop the clocks before his flag falls and claim the draw from the arbiter.

 What 'rule'; fide rule?  I am not sure what the decision would be here at my national federation based on the rules we have.  I think if you suggested to your opponent that it was a draw after your flag fell because it wasn't winnable and he declined then an arbiter might just agree with you and make it a draw.  I will ask and see actually because it's an interesting point.

FIDE, yes. I thought only the USCF had its own rules?

We may have our own rules, but we're right there with the rest of the world on this one. The relevant USCF rule is 14E: "The game is drawn even when a player exceeds the time limit" if there is insufficient material to mate.

And what's the USCF definition of "insufficient material to mate"? Any text about "any legal series of moves" or similar?

 The game is this one : http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=19126460

Its simply ridiculous that she should lose this position and she was very upset about this and let several more games time out because of it. The proper/correct result is a draw in this position with the K+Q out of time.

interesting... we have never had insufficient material rules in correspondence chess. in an OTB or live game, time is really a huge part of the game. but in correspondence chess, time shouldn't be the factor. maybe we should reconsider? but it is still a timeout... hrmm....

Erik,

I doubt K+Q against lone K is ever met in real CC chess in which the losing side doesnt resign ?  Does ICCF address this situation ?

this happens a lot in freechess blitz and its even worse in yahoo. This is why I very much dislike 5/0 4/0  3/0 2/0   blitz.

Why dont these players play with an increment? I suspect so they can pump up their rating by winning on time. I have played so many games where I have my opponent crushed with impending mate and i run out of time. A lot of times they are running around with a king and using premove.

The lone Q + K vs King has also happened to me - and my opponent actually then annoyingly chats that hes better because I ran out of time.

My solution is to play with an increment (2/12 or 5/12 are fun time controls) 

In the context of Rule 14E (and my mistake in the original post), the combinations are listed as lone K, K+N or K+B, and K+N+N. The rule further stipulates no pawns and no forced wins.

F.I.D.E Laws of Chess

6.9

Except where one of the Articles: 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the player. However, the game is drawn, if the position is such that the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.

Here's a link to a site that analyses this deeply: http://www.e4ec.org/immr.html

but does this apply to correspondence chess?

I can't possibly see why it wouldn't. If the opponent is down to a bare king, then it is literally impossible for them to win on the board. Also, if you changed it like I think you should, then it would possibly stop players always playing on right till mate in the hope that the opponent would time out and they'd get the win, which is pathetic but it happens not infrequently.