I believe a bishop vs one pawn shouldn't be a draw.

Firstly, here's the link to my friend's game: https://www.chess.com/live/game/8902550547

In the game, black (with one pawn) ran out of time and white (with one bishop) flagged him. The system said it's a draw, which I don't agree fully. If the player with one pawn plays worst possible moves, it is indeed possible for the player with one bishop to checkmate the opponent.  This is how checkmate would be possible:

1. Promotes to a knight

2. King (with knight) walks to the corner square (same colour as the bishop)

3. Knight lands itself right next to the king

4. King (with bishop) stays one square away from the other king, cutting off the escape squares

5. Bring the bishop in front of king to deliver checkmate

(this is a demo game to show that checkmate is possible)

Obviously, pretty much nobody would play like this

That being said, I don't understand why chess.com would declare this position as a draw (insufficient vs time out). Could anyone explain the reason why it is a draw to me, or does anyone else agree that it shouldn't be a draw, but a win to the person who flagged (with bishop)? Thanks

FIDE chess rules says it is a win for white.

USCF rules say its a draw (do not permit helpmates to be considered)

This site's rules are closer to USCF, in that a simple piece count determines the result. A win cannot be forced with K+B so its a draw.

@Lagomorph 

Ah ok, I understand it now. Thanks

So going by that logic, if I run out of time in a random equal middlegame position, it should be a draw too, since my opponent can't force a win there either?

Maybe there's a point count?

Yeah that's how it works on Chess.com. It's calculated by a point count.

But I don't think that's fair. Some positions are unwinnable, despite you having the right amount of material. And some positions can be won, despite you only having a lone bishop or knight.

The FIDE rules are how it should be, although I'll concede that it's difficult to program that into a chess website.

That's not now it works. If the side with time has sufficient material to mate against a lone king, then it will be a win for the side with time. On time out, it doesn't matter what material that side has.

https://support.chess.com/article/128-what-does-insufficient-mating-material-mean

Except Chess.com failed to program that correctly.

Bishop vs pawn should be a win if the side with the pawn times out.

In a FIDE rated tournament, it would be declared a win.

In reality, Chess.com declares it a draw.

Here's another example that should be declared a draw if either side times out, but Chess.com would declare it a win, even though it's an unwinnable position for either side:

FIDE rules! Chess.com don't write the rules of chess.

I even doubt if that position is a legal chess position. Show us the game that arrived to the position.

Interesting subject would say

I made the position up as an example, but it is a position that's possible to reach:

@joonseok-j
The end position is objectively a draw, so this isn't a compelling case.

Go ahead and hand them some code that covers all the cases... they'll implement it right away.

If not that, then surely you're not suggesting they hire a million employees to review the millions of games played every day, right?

But you are not forced to be in FIFA or FIDE or else, you may exit from it, right?

So the trade off is 5000 employees for <1% of games.

Pretend you're CEO. Do you think it's worth it?

Sounds legit.

I have to wonder why you don't own a big successful website like Erik does.

I guess it's just Fate's whim.