Insufficient material program is STUPID!

I do not play many bullet games but can an opponent not make an unexpected move to fool someone who has pre moved?

Yes. Pre move is just for cocky people who think they can predict. But it very useful in the endgame

I'm with Endgame on this one. The rules about running out of time make sense because if I run out of time and my opponent has only a king, had I not run out of time (or I have an indefinite amount of time) it's impossible for him to win. So for me to lose on time means he must win. It doesnt make sense to grant a win to someone that has only a king. If the rules were changed to allow running out of time as always being a loss, it would drastically change endgames because quality of play and position would be meaningless.

I think as long as theres sufficient mating material on the board, including king and 2 knights, the player who flags should lose. Even if its just 2 pawns vs a queen an rook, if the queen and rook side flag, it should be a loss. The line has to be drawn somewhere, so draw it at suffucient material. Maybe the person with the lone king in king and 2 knights endgame might have blundered from being low on time and moved into the corner allowing the 2 knights to win?

Quality of play & position are meaningless if you are out of time. Using your time efficiently is part of your quality in play & taking longer is what allowed you to get  positioned better. It is like eating your cake & wanting your opponents too. With 2 knights you have to get it done within a certain number of moves ( I believe it is 50 ) or it is a draw. If your time runs out before your opponent's does you should lose.   Two people are fighting underwater. One has all kinds of weapons & ammo & the other is down to none. The one with the weapons runs out of air & dies. Who won???  Refer to the Book of Hoyle as I previously mentioned. It is the Bible on rules of card & board games. If you are out of time, you should lose. Period. This rule has been the same for what...hundreds of years. What I would like to know is who changed this rule & when. Not why.  

Well I wouldn't say it would give that a draw because it white would lose here if he lost on time at move 1:

I've never heard of any "Book of Hoyle" but in my copy of "Hoyle's Rule's of Games," insufficient material isn't mentioned - but with good reason.  The book doesn't address competition chess or the use of clocks.  Hoyle is a nice book for casual game players, but for accurate rules on Chess, such as the rules used here,  there are official publications that address most situations. 

Here's what FIDE's "Laws of Chess" tells us:

6.9
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.

This clearly, and sufficiently, states that if time runs out on a player whose opponent cannot mate, the game is drawn.  

Even in Rapidplay, the rule applies:
A4. c.
To claim a win on time, the claimant must stop the chess-clock and notify the arbiter. For the claim to be successful, the claimant must have time remaining on his own clock after the chess-clock has been stopped. However, the game is drawn if the position is such that the claimant cannot checkmate the player’s king by any possible series of legal moves.
 

The insufficient material algorithm chess.com uses is clearly buggy and does not follow the laws of chess.  I just recently played this game: https://www.chess.com/live#g=2758424062.  My opponent lost of time and the game ended in a draw.  Playing a few moves further on against the computer it was easy to check mate Black when Black helps.  Just move the Black King close to the a8 corner and make sure you do not take the Black pawn and you will quickly find a mate with the help of a computer.

It probably doesn't take help mates into account, because who would cooperate with their opponent to get themselves checkmated?

But FIDE rules do take the possibility of help-mate (accidental or not) into account, correct?  Meaning that if a series of legal moves can lead to mate, then it is not "insufficient material".

What about a case like this:

White can mate black, but would this be considered a win for white if black flags?

The help was just to prove that mate was possible in case you wanted to recreate.  I have seen very similar positions in endgame books where White can force Black into the corner.  It would only take a small mistake or two for Black to slip into a theoretical loss.  In fact, it would be interesting to check the end position against a tablebase.

Funnily enough, in this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_knights_endgame#Troitzky_line you can see that the pawn was in fact on the Troitzky line and the position is a forced win for White with best play from both sides.  So my opponent lost on time in a lost position, but was rewarded a draw.  Seems like a bug in the program to me ...

This subject has been debated many times.

Chess.com does not follow FIDE rules  in this situation, but uses a simple piece count.

This is a well known knight vs Pawn endgame and easy checkmate to force. What would happen if black flagged?

I am not disputing the rules of chess on amount of material. In general it is very difficult to mate if not impossible with less than a rook or/ 2- knights or/ 2-bishops or/  1-knight + 1-bishop in the allotted number of moves. If either player has 1-pawn there is a possibility of promoting it to a rook or queen to positively effect a mate if done in the required number of moves. If both players have less than what is listed above the rules are to call it a draw. Agree with these rules. Time is what is stuck in my craw. If you run out of time you should lose no matter how many tanks, missiles, horses, bishops, rooks, pawns you have. Batgirl wrote about her copy of The Book of Hoyle & it not mentioning timed games. Unfortunately my very old copy ( author Edmond Hoyle 1672-1729 ) was lost in a fire.  I'm not saying my book was from his century. It did mention time controls. They used to use sand dials for clocks. I think it was two per player. A big one & a little one each. You turn the big one over & when the sand ran out you turned the little one over. you had to make your move before the little one ran out or you lost the game. Of course you would not have to use the little one if you made your move immediately after the big one ran out. If you do not have some sort of time control games can go on for what seems ...forever. It was the same then as now. If you run out of time now you should lose period . None of this nonsense of comparing who has what amount of material. Sort of like touching a piece & then not playing it. You lose for that too.

I disagree. That would lead to ridiculous time scrambles and the game as a whole would suffer.

Agreed, and with no increment, white would literally win EVERY SINGLE GAME

Maybe they should take rating into account also, like if two GMs are playing and there's this position:

If white flags, black shouldn't win

On the one hand you say you agree with the rule about one side not having enough pieces to possibly checkmate and that should be a draw. But then you also say that it's nonsense to compare who has what amount of material and the side that runs out of time should lose, no matter what.  So I dont understand. What if both sides have only a king left, should the side that runs out of time win? I think the obvious problem with awarding wins based on time only is that, like others have said, it creates a mess out of the game because endgames would be played much differently. Giving someone a loss based on time only means that the other side has to win. Even if checkmate is impossible. That makes no sense to me.