Draws Declared By Remaining Mating Material Rather Than Possibility Of Checkmate Is Illogical

This site uses a different rule for insufficient mating material occurring simultaneously with one side running out of time, rather than the standard FIDE rule. The FIDE rule (and the only logical one) is that if checkmate is possible in any way for the opponent, you lose if your time runs out. However this site uses a different rule for this where the mating material of only the side who still has time left is considered. To show how absurd this is, look what happens in the following positions as a result:

If either side loses on time here, that side loses, despite neither side being able to ever checkmate the other via any sequence of legal moves. It's a draw, game over, yet both sides can lose.

Black loses here if his time runs out, but...

Black is mated next move here, yet if he deliberately lets his time run out, he gets a draw, since one bishop and king is considered "insufficient". The same thing happens here:

If black refuses to move the pawn after Kf8, and lets his time run out, he gets a draw despite being unable to avoid mate next move. So..1 pawn blocked by 2 queens and a king is considered "sufficient" to win, but not a minor piece that can forcibly checkmate the next move?

And finally:

If black's time runs out here, he gets a draw, despite 1 of his 2 legal moves resulting in mate next move. Completely contradictory and backward. This is why the FIDE rule of "if checkmate is possible in any way the side running out of time loses" needs to be used for online live chess and OTB tournaments. Anything else results in this silly illogic and contradictions!

This is what happened in an alireza vs magnus game ....where alirezas clock ran out of time ....where carlsen wss declared winner ...bcoz there was a delibrate move that could have caused a checkmate ....carlsen was declared winner and alireza became furious of the rules as he said why would i take my kI'llng in the corner to get deliberately checkmated .....alireza said when his clock was running hard ....carlsen said something in norwaygein out if despair during the game ....which distracted him

Yes, and I agree with the result of him losing that game. What I don't agree with is being able to save a lost game by deliberately running out of time, such as in my example positions above.

In the second board, white can potentially win the game, so the rules make sense.

And white has a much higher chance of winning in positions 2 and 3, (mate is next move) so why does black get a draw there?

Uhh, how is chess.com server going to calculate if mate is possible without a judge then.

The same way it automatically declares a draw when one side has only a king and knight left, by programming the parameters in. And I think it would be much easier to program a "possibility of mate" search, than a piece count search, because there are less possible piece combinations where checkmate by 1 side is impossible. Note I am excluding dead positions for this point (in a dead position neither side can win, it is already a draw). King and 1 knight or 1 bishop should only be a draw if the opposing side has either a sole king or a king and a queen, or a king and any number of queens, since losing to the knight is impossible, whereas any other added pieces that arent queens would make it possible. Even a non-rook pawn by the side running out of time can result in the knight winning, such as in a sequence like this:

riight

but the thing is chess.com doesnt have dead positions?

i mean, the one where black has locked the bishop and knight probably allows the players to continue, in chess.com

but still ive realised how simple it is to put in

what abt forced draws

or 

smth like this and white timeouts

your logic would give black the win

or do you separately suggest that a short term forced mate checker be implemented

and maybe there are single knight vs non queen without checkmates

and oh, what about the drama amongst ppl who know that single knight cant mate on the forums but dont know this rule

I specifically said for the purposes of programming, I wasn't talking about dead positions. I was talking only about the piece count logic. I have tossed around the idea of "trigger moves" like you said, or the site automatically playing the only legal move for you, maybe there could be a setting you could enable for it to do that, but that's pushing it. I never said black should get the win in a position like that. Black has no theoretical way of winning the game (since he himself is going to be inevitably mated, so the compromise is a draw). Giving a player a win if he losses on time because he has no choice but to checkmate the opponent in a help-mate scenario is another issue.

No, there are no other piece combinations other than king and x number of queens that can't lose to a lone knight. This is because a knight, bishop, or rook, can all block an escape square in the corner allowing the knight to checkmate. But if a queen is on that escape square then it is always guarding the square the knight would move to to check the king. Even a non-rook pawn can promote and that piece can be the blocker as long its not a queen.

As for what people know or not is irrelevant. A king and knight is a draw against a lone king regardless of who realizes it or not.

yeah its irrelevant, but they will complain

"if a knight cant checkmate why did i lose on time" is a complaint i predict

and by the knight statement i meant a position where one just cant setup the pieces in a way to make the knight checkmate

not to forget about single bishop vs single bishop of same colors (which cant have anything)

and afaik: non timed out person can win: they do win

they cant win: its a draw

but idk any laws about: they must lose, other than lumping it in the second category

The result of the game when a player loses on time is based on what material his opponent has, not what he has, so I don't get what you are asking? What the player himself has can effect whether what pieces the opponent has is enough to checkmate the player, but it comes down whether the opponent can checkmate him, not the other way around. And by that I mean is it even possible, not can it be forced or how rare it would be. It's interesting to note that if the opponent has only a bishop, then both a queen and a rook make it impossible for the bishop to win because the rook can always block the bishop (but cant block a knight). Also I believe that even if the player who flagged has enough material to box himself into a corner and let his opponent mate him, is his only next move was to transpose the position into one where mate isn't possible, then it's a draw again. For example:

Since blacks next move would have to capture the knight, he would get a draw even though there are positions where the knight could checkmate based on the piece count alone.

what i mean is

in the position i posted ( a fairly well known joke composition )

black cant win

so, white times out

so, chess.com logic would state that black wins, when fide logic says its a draw

i am asking: how would you solve this sort of position, and the obvious answer is forcing only moves

and yeah i am talking about situations like your board, but more nuanced

like take the first board in #1

chess.com logic allows people to play on, so this sort of dead position is not included in chess.com logic

so, how would you go about including it (as this falls into the topic)

neither your knight idea nor a short term forced (ie with worst play from one side and the best play from the other, the first side wins or its a draw) win/draw checker nor an only move maker works

i mean, from a computing pov, it is hard to see that that position is dead

basically: a thing which implements dead positions like those

how to create such a thing

Chess dot com would give black the win if white flags simply because black has pawns. It wouldn't give white a win or even a draw, it would give white a loss. It doesn't take into account the position of the pawns. Whether white should get a win even if he loses on time because he has no choice but to mate black is another issue altogether. It would be very hard to take into account every possible dead position because there are so many, even ones just with pawns. There could be a few algorithms that take into account thousands of variations of the same position, such as the following 4 parameters:

1. Locked pawns on same rank

2. Pawns alternate files exactly

3. Each side has a bishop on the same color as their pawns.

4. Both sides king are below their respective 4th rank or below the rank if their locked pawns.

These parameters would take into account all possible versions of these positions:

But not these ones:

But dead positions aren't even the main issue I'm talking about because with those time is irrelevant. They would trigger a draw even if both players have 10 minutes left. They are like stalemate/checkmate, game over. The other situations I'm talking about are only contigent upon one side losing on time.

objection: i dont think chess.com does dead positions

like, get that position, and chess.com wouldnt call it a draw

they would force us to play on till 50 move rule (weirdly, this is forced: chess.com could maybe add a counter somewhere that says "on whites/blacks xth move a draw can be claimed due to 50 moves"

and then once its done the player to move is notified that there is a draw (probably at the same area, like "you can claim a draw by 50 moves"

and how to do this? click the draw button, of course

this is just a part of a major problem which is: chess.com maybe should comply fully with otb, whether that be fide or uscf or whatever)

Here's an extremely realistic endgame example where if white rushes with a rook pawn against a king and knight, he can lose to a forced checkmate sequence:

If white realizes his mistake after 1.a6, he can deliberately let his time run out, and he would get a draw due to black only having a knight. This is the problem with only considering the material on one side for draw detection systems.

Endgame is right, except it can matter what pieces a player has, e.g. K+B each of opposite colours is a draw, K+B of the same colour is a win for a player if the others flag falls.

Yes! Completely correct! Although I think you said it backwards. Opposite colored bishops can mate, same colored can't. The position below is insufficient mating material!

Nope

Yes of course you are quite right. I did get that the wrong way round. 

If its black's move in OP example three, why wouldn't black move and seek to win rather than refuse to move for a draw?