Problem with "Insufficient Material" detector.

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=104763775

My opponent flags and instead of getting a win, I get a draw because of insufficient material.

FIDE Rulebook:

"6.9 Except where one of the 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 the 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."

From the game position, with white to play...

Therefore, I deserved a win.

I would have to agree that under the rule you have a strong argument for a win. Though highly unlikely he would promote the pawn to a Bishop in this scenario, they are nonetheless legal moves.

The rules for insufficient material in live chess changed recently. Check out this blog post. And this forum topic.

Agreed. This has come up before, and I believe represents a glitch on the site. K+B or K+N is not insufficient material if your opponent still has a pawn or minor piece on the board. Of important note here is that FIDE has repeatedly ruled that "any possible series of legal moves" includes "with the most unskilled counterplay," or even against a player who is intentionally assisting in the accomplishment of the mate.

Unfortunately this is chess.com and not the World Chess Federation.

one would presume that a site with the name "chess.com" would adhere to the official rulebook.

Alas, presumptions don't make you right.

Chess.com is not a subsidiary of the World Chess Federation or in any way affiliated with that body. Also I assume that chess.com's servers are in the USA, and the USCF would agree with the live chess computer at chess.com.

Since FIDE, USCF, and chess.com are all voluntary organizations there can be no argument that you abide by the rules of the body you are working within. You agree to the terms and conditions of chess.com when you make an account.

If you get caught in the United States doing something illegal but that partiuclar act has been decriminalized by the International Crimnal Court, you can't claim you're not in trouble with US courts simply because somehwere else it was legal so you 'presumed' it was here.

The legal principle 'Ignorantia juris non excusat' ("Ignorance of the law does not excuse") applies here. You are not exempt from a law you were unaware of, and chess.com has 'jurisdiciton' of chess.com, not the FIDE or USCF.

You are actually lucky you would have lost the chess game

If you play with time increment this kind of problem won't occur anymore

Dude, just stfu before you further embarrass yourself. Chess.com should adhere to the rules of chess (USCF's "Insufficient Winning Chances" is, although valid for this case, impossible to implement across the site, and therefore one would be led to believe FIDE's rules should preside). I'm not claiming any affiliation between chess.com and either of those bodies nor am I claiming that they have some "legal obligation" to change their detector, and frankly your inability to comprehend that baffles me. I am suggesting that chess.com change the way their detector works to suit the rules.

If tomorrow, chess.com decided that queens on this site are now going to move like a pawn/rook combination, would you think this was ok? Of course not. Legal, sure, but definitely not ok. You'd more likely than not stop playing here.

To you other two people:

First, I would not have "lost" this game, as in bullet, sacrificing position for time advantage is a perfectly legitimate strategy which I implement regularly, and one which works just fine the vast majority of the time (and when I say "vast majority", I mean that I've played over 2700 bullet games on this site and this is the first issue)

Second, I don't play with time increments for a reason... so that I can implement the strategy above.

Strong proof+ Infallible logic = Chess.com BUSTED!

Who are you and why are you retarded?

First of all I'm sorry that I hurt your feelings and I'm sorry that you cannot accept criticism. 

It's not analagous to say that changing the basic rules of chess would be the same circumstance, because MOST PEOPLE on the site would recognize they aren't playing chess as commonly understood. This is about tournament/clock play, of which chess.com does not have an analogous system because they do not have a human arbiter to judge the position. Also, if you noticed in my post, different chess organizations have different rules about how to regulate tournament/clock play. 

You can look to many forums, topics, and other articles challenging chess.com's rules, and also moderators and programmers re-stating chess.com's position. Like I said it isn't their fault you disagree with THEIR SITE'S RULES ABOUT LIVE CHESS. You should have known the rules before going into the game; you should accept the decision of chess.com's rules.

You never explicitly asked chess.com to change the rules; You implied it because you presumed that chess.com should follow FIDE policy on this. Why? Are you a grandmaster? Was that a world tournament at stake? NO! Chess.com wrote blanket computer code for their live chess servers to save server workload for less lag, and for more people to be able to play.

To have every game running a chess computer simultaneously would increase the workload of chess.com astronomically and with it the cost of running the site.

Does it make sense now?! Like I said chess.com doesn't HAVE TO run it's tournaments/clock play exactly like some outside body like FIDE does because PLAYING CHESS ONLINE IS DIFFERENT THAN AN FIDE SPONSORED TOURNAMENT. One is not analogous to the other and your absurd distraction about changing how a queen moves muddies the waters. 

I was never pointing out a "legal obligation" or otherwse but you're argument is not valid because chess.com doesn't HAVE TO follow FIDE tournament rules nor anyone else's to suit Live Chess.

Also Mr. "I love the FIDE" i just found this article as per your method of "sacrificing position for time advantage"...

article 10 of the FIDE laws of chess states that when a player has less than two minutes left on their clock during a rapid play finish (the end of a game when all remaining moves must be completed within a limited amount of time), they may claim a draw if their opponent is not attempting to win the game by "normal means" or cannot win the game by "normal means". "Normal means" can be taken to mean the delivery of checkmate or the winning of material. In other words, a draw is claimable if the opponent is merely attempting to win on time, or cannot possibly win except by on time. It is up to the arbiter to decide whether such a claim will be granted or not.

How would you like to program the code to decide whether you wanted to 'win on time' rather than by 'normal means'. Hmmm...?

This is a stretch of the rules. White would have to delibrately lose his rook, three pawns, underpromote to a bishop and engage in a helpmate.

All rules are subject to common sense. If I was a tournament director, and I have been, I would be reluctant to declare this game anything but a draw. If necessary, I would have the player who has only a bishop to demonstrate a win immediately after the game. Surely, I cannot wait for him to analyze the game for hours before I come to a decision.

Barefoot_Player

FIDE 10.2 is applicable in this case.

"10.2

If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See Article 6.12.b)

a.

If the arbiter agrees the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means, or that it is not possible to win by normal means, then he shall declare the game drawn. Otherwise he shall postpone his decision or reject the claim."

The problem is that there is no way to summon an arbiter, so Chess.com implemented a compromise solution.

So, to save page length by not quoting you...

1. I'm NOT implying that chess.com is wrong for not havingmade their system "my way", merely suggesting that they change it (seriously, what the f*** about that are you STILL not understanding)? Their current "insufficient material" detector shows an effort to implement such a system.

2. Nobody reads the damn TOS. Get off your high horse.

3. As for your last post... wtf is wrong with you? That rule has no bearing on the position at hand! That rule was clearly not meant for someone who was winning by as much material as my opponent was. If he wanted to "claim a draw", I probably would have given it to him!

4. As for implementing... not really my problem.

5. Grammar, dumbass. Use it.

Article 10.2. rules.

No effort to win by normal means or impossible to win by normal means = draw.

My metal detector is broken because I can find coins, but no cash.  I only made 3 bucks in change!  I do believe another venture is in order.

I don't really know how to have a conversation with someone when they refuse to address the points I've made. Instead of insulting me with his smarts Cry_Wolf just... insults me with his obstinance. 

Seriously you claim you 'deserved' a win but if you're opponent had asked for a draw you would have given it to him? Aren't you backtracking a little?

You seem incapabale of graspng that chess.com is not an FIDE sponsored tournament. You seem incapable of thinking abstractly as to why chess.com's servers would run different rules. You seem incapable of answering any of my petitions as to why rule 10.2 doesn't apply to your game, as well as the dozen other people that chimed in that this is a draw by chess.com standards as well as USCF. And given a human arbiter, MOST LIKELY a FIDE draw.