This is not the only issue with the way chess.com deals with insufficient material. Extensive discussion with support will lead you to discover that they're aware of the inconsistency but that the system they have in place matches their intentions. Other sites have the same issues, or in some cases more serious ones.
Support article insufficient material (not timeout situation)
Sort:
The chess.com article is confusing "insufficient material" and "insufficient material on a timeout"
It would be interesting to know if the article is correct when it says K+2N vs K in an ongoing game would be an immediate draw on chess.com.
If you follow the link at the bottom of the article, it tries to explain what happens on a timeout with K+2N vs K. But the inconsistency is that a timeout could never happen if the first article is correct !
Confusion.
Apr 25, 2021
0
#4
@chyss Thanks for sharing your experience here. Cool cap, by the way. To be clear. I am not criticizing how chess.com deals with this situation. I am just pointing out that their way of presenting their treatment of the rule, sort of "as the USCF rule, " is incorrect in my understanding and leads to confusion.
I don't understand the below statement on the support page regarding insufficient material (not timeout situation). To be clear, this is not about the timeout situation, explained here, but the situation when both players still have time on the clock. More precisely, I think the below statement is not correct. Can you please clarify how you come to this statement? Thanks a lot.
"In the specific case of two knights versus a lone king, USCF rule specifies that the game is drawn because there is no forced mate."
The relevant USCF rules are below:
14D. Insufficient material to continue.
The game is drawn when one of the following endings exists as of the most recently determined legal move, in which the possibility of a win is excluded for either side (effective 1-1-19). See also 15H, Reporting of results:
TD TIP: Remember a 14D draw claim is first a draw offer (Rule 14, The Drawn Game).
14D1. King vs. king.
King vs. king.
14D2. King vs. king with bishop or knight.
King vs. king with bishop or knight.
14D3. King and bishop vs. king and bishop.
King and bishop vs. king and bishop, with both bishops on diagonals of the same color.
14D4. No legal moves leading to checkmate by opponent.
There are no legal moves that could lead to the player being checkmated by the opponent.
Because with two knights versus a lone king, there are legal moves that lead to a checkmate, the game, according to the USCF rules per 14D4, continues. Chess.com, however, per the article, forcefully ends the game with a draw at this point.
As a consequence of the above, per my understanding, the below statement is also not correct.
"However, Chess.com follows the USCF rule in this case, and calls two knights insufficient mating material because the checkmate can not be forced."
As chess.com does not follow the USCF rule in this case per the above, the statement is incorrect in the same way.