Chess.com Does Not Know the Rules of Chess

I recently read GM Serper's article about if Arbiters really knew the rules to chess (http://www.chess.com/article/view/do-chess-arbiters-know-the-rules-of-chess).  I thought it was interesting and learned a thing or two.

Then today I found out Chess.com doesn't know the rules! 

My recent game http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=1179131981 is an example.  That should be a loss for me (according to the article).  

Through sufficient unskilled play, I should be able to reduce my Queen, Rook, and Two pawns vs knight to a K+N vs K+N endgame which was demonstrated to be a checkmatable possition in the article.

Which is it Chess.com?

Chess.com utilizes a variant on the USCF rules for insufficient material which does not include helpmates like FIDE does. Since white ran out of time, the site looks at the material that white has and normally, a lone knight cannot checkmate, so that is what they do.

USCF rules state it would be a loss by black because of the black pawns on the board (if I recall correctly). However, the outcome is correct by the rules that the site has implemented.

https://support.chess.com/customer/portal/articles/1444798 (last line)

However, chess.com still doesn't do the rules correctly because they simply look at the White material and deem it a draw.

Even USCF, the rules state that the following are considered insufficient mating material:

Lone King

King and 1 Bishop

King and 1 Knight

King and 2 Knights and the opponent has no pawns.

However, USCF also says that if you can FORCE CHECKMATE, despite the insufficient material, you get a win.  Here, it doesn't do that.  It still warrants a draw, which is wrong.  The following is a great example.  If Black takes on g8, White plays Bh6, and Black let's his clock run out, in USCF, this is scored a win for White.  On chess.com, it's scored a draw.  Only legal move for Black is ...Kh8 when after Kf7, Black can play ...e6 or ...e5, both of which lead to Bg7 mate by White, and it's completely forced!

Chess is not a proprietary game.

FIDE and the USCF have the right to decide which rules are used in their events, so does Chess.com.

Even if we don't like them (the rules)! 

If that is true, there should be an edit to the article to show that the site it is posted on does not follow the same rules claiming to be "wrong" (or at least explain the discrepancy.

I wouldn't have worried about it until they posted an article pointing it out.

And that is fine.  But why would a site publish an article talking about the rules being "correct" despite differing from their own without addressing the issue?

I have no idea what are you talking about.

In the game you linked,  Black in theory could win, but if he ends up out of time, then the game is declared won by white or draw ( depending the material white have still on board).

Since white have not enough material to checkmate ( King + lone Knight CANNOT checkmate even if black helps achieving that), the draw for insuficient material sounds correct.

K+N v K+N can checkmate if you check out the article listed in the orginal post (http://www.chess.com/article/view/do-chess-arbiters-know-the-rules-of-chess).

From what I can gather, Chess.com is using a different set of rule than the set GM Serper used in his article but did not clarify it anywhere.

If the USCF and FIDE use different rules does this mean that one set of rules is wrong? (Leaving aside the possibility of both sets of rules being wrong).

If so upon what basis is it decided that one set of rules is correct and another is not?

Was one painter following the correct rules of painting, and if so which one? And would this make all of the masterpieces that were painted incorrectly of less value?

That is what I have to come to determine is the case from previous replies.  It would have been nice for Chess.com to clarify in the original article that rules vary and that they use rules differing from what the article deems "correct".

However, GM Serper says FIDE is more correct.  Chess.com says USCF is more correct.  Hmmmmmmmmm?

A GM on the site published an article. It isn't a chess.com official article.

Many players here publish articles and most of them are not official.

Ah, that's right, it was 2 knights with pawns and not 1 knight, so in the game linked above, the result was correct by USCF rules.

In the example you gave, the site errs on the side of less complexity (not requiring an engine to make the decision) and simplifies it to the basic insufficient material rules. I would guess that the vast majority of games get it right and very few actual games get called draws when the force win exists in the above example.

That position could have been achieved pretty easlily in the game I listed.  Granted it would require me to blunder, but it is bullet! Many blunders happen in time trouble.  Why couldn't I blunder mate and lose?

I just checked out the rules. You appear to be mixing up articles 5.2b and 6.9

I will present the information here:

5.2b

1. The game is drawn when a position has arisen in which neither player can checkmate the opponent’s king with any series of legal moves. The game is said to end in a ‘dead position’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7. 

The position Gregory Serper was referencing.

Except where one of 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 that 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.

The draw is correct. He can checkmate you in K+N v K+N. That's why he drew even though he ran out of time.

I think you missed the fact that I was the one who ran out of time.  If he ran out of time, I would have won on time, as I clearly have mating material.

Or you think that even if the time difference was opposite it should be a draw?  He runs out of time but since I can checkmate with a Q+R+2P v K and he is out of time it is a draw?

Ooooh you were black! Ya that's what I'm saying. Black draws if he runs out of time, white loses if he runs out of time.

Not under the rules in the article GM Serper posted earlier this week (http://www.chess.com/article/view/do-chess-arbiters-know-the-rules-of-chess).

I can reach the same K+N v K+N end game shown in the article.

From the article:  "But what about arbiters (called tournament directors in the U.S.)?"

They made sure to mention the same title in the US but not a differenence in rules?

Also, why would a website want to run under different rules than you would face OTB? 

That just it, there are differences in the rules between USCF events and FIDE events. Most are pretty minor but a few of the draw rules in particluar are different. If a USCF event is also FIDE rated, then FIDE rules normally apply.

As to the reason online rules will be different, you don't have an arbiter and they don't want to code around every single exception there might be. Also, as I mentioned before, the preference would be to go with the less complex rules to implement (and the can checkmate by any possible moves rule is one they wouldn't want to code for).