What is "Time out vs insufficient material"?

...except white DID win because black ran out of time :-)

Two things occured to me since last night when I was thinking about this. First is that in this case the opponent is awarded the best possible score if time runs out, which is probably fair. If white runs out of time, black gets a win (his best possible outcome anyway) and if black runs out of time white gets a half point (also his best possible outcome). But I still think that running out of time should count as a loss, the point being to use time wisely to avoid getting into a horrible position at the end of the game. The second thing that occured to me is why cant both sides get the best possible outcome? I know the rules say they cant, but couldnt that be an option? If time runs out why not give black the win AND white the half point?

The rules stand as they are. The player knows he has to deliver a mate before the flag falls to win, and he knows that if the opponent has enough material to a theoretical win he will lose on time if he cant mate before the flag falls. Therefore some players takes all the opponents pieces to at least save the draw.  

If the World Champion finals are decided with an Armageddon the rules feels a bit unfair, giving white to much advantage. The black/white lottery is too decisive. Armageddon is white gets 6 minutes and black 5. If White wins he/she wins, if it is a draw black wins. It is close to impossible to outplay black and win and therefor the one that picks the white pieces will have maybe 80% chances to become champion.

https://www.chess.com/live#g=2271177422

This is a dumb rule. If one player has sufficient material enough to mate, but the clock runs out, that player should lose on time.

Except time was a factor for the entire game. One player then has an opportunity to win by mating and at worst will draw, the other player has no opportunity to mate and will at best draw. That is why it is a dumb rule, because it literally creates a situation where the rules are not evenly applied to the players.

It's a dynamic game, decisions you make are based on time throughout the game. Time is a determining factor for many games resulting in losses. Time is in fact part of the rules of chess. Allowing one side to play but not have the ability to win, whereas the other side may play but have no ability to lose is unbalanced.

I think the current rule is good and don't think running out of time should count as a loss.  Look at it this way:  Black has pummeled white to the point that white has insufficient material.  Draw is the best white can do.  Black earned at least a draw.   It was earned.  Black runs the clock out trying to win, but already achieved the draw.  

@Calvary It's called Sudden Death and it is when the clock expires, assuming both sides having sufficient material to mate, the player whose clock runs down loses. I can't believe you have never heard of this rule. You truly are not credible, and your tone is such, that I will no longer reply to you in any way and you are blocked as well. Denying time control rules in chess is so bogus of an argument, you are not worth any more time to spend.

@forked The way you described it is a bit hyperbolic. One side "pummeling" another side makes the entire match seem one sided, when that is too extreme a line and frankly not necessary for the argument at all. The facts are that one side has "sufficient mating material... assuming they have time to do it." That is the point, they do not have the time to do it, so they do not in fact have the material. What good is material if they simply will not be able to pull it off?

Well said Deirdre. Neither side deserves the win, so the rule makes sense.  

It seems like FIDE, USCF and Chess.com all have the rule, although not exactly the same, so this has been thought out already., and is standard, not controversial.

Coincidentally though, the exact same thing happened to me playing against the computer yesterday using Lucas Chess.  Black had only a king, and I had king, knight, and pawn.  I wasn't watching the clock, but was trying to figure out how to promote without allowing stalemate.  I ran out of time and  Lucas chess called it my loss, despite black having insufficient material.  

Brilliant. Proves my point. Continues to get angry. Then blocks me. 

I'm not going to contribute to this debate. Instead, I will politely ask everyone how the weather is where they currently are.

In the front range of rockies, the high will be about 80 F, the nights have been cold all of a sudden, down to the low 40s or high 30s even.  The cold nights have finally chased the damn flies away, which is always a problem if you live with horses.  

A little overcast, but pretty nice!

This is without a doubt the the stupidest rule I've ever heard. I suspect its fairly new-  along the lines of everyone gets a trophy. Time is a resource just the same as material. If i lose my queen can i get it back please? If time is mismanaged (ie lost) there should be repercussions for that, like any other lost resource.

One side ran out of time an dones side ran out of material. So it's a draw because both players ran out of the necessary ressources to checkmate.

I'm always amused at people who get all worked up about an issue without understanding it.  And then seeing political undertones as well lol!

I finally understand this rule. 

Think of it this way. Your opponent runs out of time, which means you can make as many moves as you want without them making any moves. You move, but they can't, so you move again. If you can move and move and move and move and still not be able to mate because you have insufficient material, it's a draw.