No mating material = Draw

All other chess sites I have played on will automatically deem a game a draw if time runs out and the player who has time left has only one minor piece.
The logic for this is simple. The player with one Knight has no realistic winning chances.
I would consider the fact that this logic does not seem to be understood by this site to be a major knock.
The result is that players dancer their one remaining piece around the board pointlessly in hopes of winning on time in a clearly drawn game.

I assume that ommitting this rule was not an oversight and was done with a purpose.
Please enlighten me on the logic behind it.

These type of "annoyances" are enough to keep me from spending my limited chess funds on upgrading an account on this site.

--CM

If you're talking about this game (http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=46491769), I'm afraid that your opponent does have mating material.  According to FIDE rules, if a helpmate is possible, then mating material exists.  Your opponent may just have a knight and a king, but that pawn you have makes a big difference.  It is possible (and I'm not saying that you would actually do this, it just needs to be possible) that you could promote that pawn to a bishop and allow the following position to occur:

this is a tough issue that we've not been sure how to best handle. should we make it so that helpmates like this are also draws, even if sometimes this means that the person who COULD checkmate, wouldn't get the win? seems like whichever we choose (more lax vs more strict insufficient material rules), one side loses out. but i'm guessing that we should probably be more encompassing and forgiving with insufficient material rules.

thanks for bringing this up!

If any checkmate can be achieved by any sequence of legal moves (i.e. a helpmate), the game should continue, and if time runs out, that player should lose. That's not unfair at all. However, whenever any position with truly insufficient material is reached (e.g. K vs. K+N), that game should automatically be adjudicated a draw, without a claim. (I don't know how Chess.com actually treats situations like this, as I don't recall encountering this scenario yet.)

I think the K+N ending should allow a claim, since even a blind monkey on PCP wouldn't end up in a corner like that unintentionally.

> Sorry, but your slight misunderstanding of the appropriate rules has cost you this game

There was no misunderstanding of the rules.
My question regarded realistic mating chances. And my opponent had none.
Is it possible for this site to distinguish "realistic" chances?
Well, no other chess site has caused me (or anyone else) to bring up this question....so they must be doing something right.

> this is a tough issue that we've not been sure how to best handle. should we make it so that helpmates like this are also draws, even if sometimes this means that the person who COULD checkmate, wouldn't get the win? seems like whichever we choose (more lax vs more strict insufficient material rules), one side loses out. but i'm guessing that we should probably be more encompassing and forgiving with insufficient material rules.

How many times have you been frustrated that you were about to win a game due to a help-mate, but lost the opportunity because it was deemed a draw?
How many times have any of us run into this problem?

I claim that, in determining which side of the debate to error on, it would seem more logical to lean towards the side that occurs most often.
And I think it's fair to say that 98%+ of these type of situations should be deemed a draw.

 Thanks for listening

--cm

Correct me if I'm wrong...

But in some tournaments nowadays, if a player A loses on time, can the TD still declare the game a draw he does not believe player B has "reasonable winning chances"?

--cm

Post #7 effectively illustrates the differences between insufficient material and theoretical draws. Thanks for posting those!

I'm not 100% certain, but I think the OP misunderstands the same thing that I witness many people misunderstanding, and that is the difference between "insufficient material" and "insufficient losing chances." When a player's material gets down to a King and Knight, he has no business expecting a draw by insufficient material unless the opponent has a bare King.

Furthermore, checkmate being difficult or unrealistic to achieve is completely different from being truly impossible to achieve. If a player with a King and Knight is playing against a King and Bishop, or something like K+N vs. K+P, checkmate is still possible, its remote likelihood notwithstanding. In those situations, the player can claim or ask for a draw. But the draw is not in hand until it's K+N vs. only K.

That's also true, but I think the TD also takes into consideration whether player B is expending a requisite amount of effort trying to achieve a checkmate. If yes, then player B wins; if no, then it's a draw... perhaps.

is this insufficient material?

please take a good look at it, i've already sent it to chess.com support but a guy called josh says a helpmate is possible (although analysis has already been given

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=43193528

I am black, opponent is white

i would also like my points back

Ringwraith2021: Right, that is not only sufficient, but forcible.

The only configuration for insufficient material that doesn't involve one side having a bare King is K+B vs. K+B where each Bishop travels on similar-colored squares.

I am not master, but it seems like in that case white has no chance to mate.  However the balck king ends up in a corner for a helpmate, the black queen can block the check.  Black can mate, which should mean that black would win on time, but white can't which means that it should be a draw if black runs out of time, right? 

As for Erik's cunundrum with the rules, what if the player's got the option for what would be considered insufficient?  Sure, it would end up with a whole new avenue of unsportsman like posts, but it would be a fair way to do it.  Otherwise, I think that it is perfectly reasonable to stick with FIDE, or any other set of, rules.  Just make the rules known and everyone plays to them, thus it is fair. 

 There is a rule "insufficient losing chances."  It requires adjudication before the time expires.

But in post #4 you put that if your opponent has any legal sequence of moves that will checkmate you when you run out of time, then you should lose.  If the TD came over to judge a K + N vs K + P, then he would rule that a draw if the side with the pawn runs out of time.  Helpmate does exist, but that pawn would have to underpromote for the K + N to have any winning chances.  K + N can never win against K + Q.  Also, K + N can never win unless the pawn moves.

My point here is that if we go with the helpmate rule, then we wouldn't need a TD to judge a position unless he needs to determine if there is a helpmate on the board.  As far as I know, there is no way to call a live moderator over while a game is in progress here on live chess (can't stop the clocks).  I'm not sure if you can claim the draw or not.  This is probably why most chess sites give an automatic draw for a K + P vs K + N if the side with the pawn runs out of time.

White has no helpmate here.  You had a queen.  I think the result should be a draw.  :)  The only piece that he has that can put your king in check is his dark bishop.  But there will be at least two light squares (squares that a dark bishop cannot attack) around the king when his bishop puts you in check.  When your king is in check, then your king is on a dark square.  This means that your king will move vertically, horizontally, or the queen will help defend your king from check.  Your opponents king cannot guard all the light squares (2 to 4 light squares) around your king at the same time.  It can only guard just one square (or one side of your king).  Black's queen can occupy the other light square (when your king is in the a1 or h8 corner), but then the queen is close enough to defend your king.  If you lose your queen for nothing, then you have K + B vs K which is a draw.  :)

CoranMoran, Woton: there is no such thing as "insufficient losing chances" or "reasonable winning chances" in the FIDE laws of chess.

In the game you posted, there is a possible series which would lead to a checkmate in your game, as pointed out by omnipaul, so you lost the game.

You could be awarded a draw if there was an arbiter there:

Article 10: Quickplay Finish

However, I think that it is really unfair for a chess.com to allow such  practice(winning the game which is essentailly a draw), but to make things really transparent, I suggest that ches.com conducts a big poll to see what do we (members) think about that.

@Dragec - You have some good stuff there.  Although, I'm not sure if we can apply article 10.2a to live chess here because we are unable to stop the clocks as far as I know.  And I don't think there are arbiters that we can contact to claim the draw.  I might be wrong though.

My point exactly, chess.com probably cannot implement clock stopping, nor it can employ additional staff to act as arbiters.

Therefore IMO, if we would act in spirit of Laws of chess article 10.2.a, we would grant a draw in a situations where it would be clear that constructing a mate would be event with extremely low probability.

So my suggestion is a poll to see what do people think , and then chess.com would implement this.