Why is this not an 'insufficient material' draw ?

Screenshot (White Wins On Time): http://imgur.com/a/FmDS9 

The two pawns are locked and there is no way the black king could be forced to move to allow the white king to dispose of the black pawn.

Of course black could have taken the white pawn but it seemed there was no reason to, when trying to manufacture a last minute mate. Would this be a loss in a real game? Or can the computer just not recognise that there is no way the white pawn is going to advance?

It doesn't matter if it can promote or not, a pawn is sufficient material.

In an OTB game with an arbiter black can claim a draw due to insufficient losing chances. If he doesn't claim the draw and times out, he loses.

Yes it's a loss. Black could easily have taken the white pawn, too. An arbiter who awarded a draw wouldn't be an arbiter for long, hopefully.

The point is that draws are awarded at the arbiter's discretion if the person whose time is running out can demonstrate that he can draw the game .... and yet this game isn't a draw, which raises the question, "why didn't black just take the pawn?", which could be accomplished just as easily as stopping the clock, so much so that to stop the clock and call the arbiter might well be regarded as facetious and wasting the arbiter's time, which tends to be frowned upon when they have other games to monitor.

Well of course black can demonstrate how he can draw the game. You just said it yourself - by taking the pawn.

So pretty much you should just take the pawn even though its a waste of time when trying to rush a mate in this situation? Because that's the rule even in non-internet chess.

Why would black be laughed out of the room exactly? For not knowing to take the pawn?

Also so when you say any legal series of moves you mean that if its possible for black to suicide itself to a loss, then white wins on time?

Yes, FIDE takes the possiblity of help mates into account during flag fall situations.

No, a helpmate doesn't count and so two knights and king versus lone king is drawn. In my opinion at least, if black stopped the clock and called the arbiter, then yes, he would be laughed out of the room and the arbiter might well find some excuse to award the game to white. I think if black waited til literally the last second and stopped the clock with a second left, the arbiter should award it to white simply because black had been trying to win it .... otherwise he could have taken two seconds to take the pawn. It's arbiter's discretion when it comes down to it.

Taking the pawn is insurance against a loss. You then have at least a draw. 

If you're very short on time, this is the thing to do. Secure the draw - then try to win. 

Why risk it all, when you can try to win without any risk at all? If the worst happens and you're out of time, you still get a draw if he has no material. 

That's the rule - and it is hoped that you will think with it in your next games. 

I don't think anyone said anything about 2 knights and king vs king. In a flag fall situation for FIDE, if the side with time left can mate by any legal series of moves, which includes helpmates, then they win.

While arbiters do have some discretion, as long as black follows the rules and stops the clock and makes the correct claim, the rules are pretty clear on what the ruling should be. As long as time remains on the clock, only having one second is immaterial. Of course, that is completely dependent on Appendix G being in effect.

FIDE doesn't have a specific insufficient material rule. Article 9.7 covers it but the rule is if checkmate can't occur by any series of legal moves then the game is immediately drawn.

If your flag falls and any legal sequence of moves would result in your checkmate then you lose.  If you want the draw you have to claim it before your flag falls, on the grounds that White is not trying to win "by normal means".

In the position before us the real question is however did Black fail to have checkmated White with such an enormous superiority in material?

In any case Black has nothing to complain about.  He should be glad to have learned this lesson.  It is just one loss.  In future he won't make the same mistakes.

I find it difficult to see how white can have been trying to win the game - unless perhaps stout defence avoiding loss and so keeping hope alive can be said to be "trying to win".  So a claim by black might give an arbiter discretion.

But that is silly.  Black is not going to claim a draw with mate in three on the board - every player will try to beat the clock in such a case.

So it is the rule when the flag falls which counts, a rule which is crystal clear and makes no allowance for judgment.

It is irksome to lose on time when in a winning position.  But managing time is as important as managing the pieces.

Seems there's some mixing here between USCF rules & FIDE rules. I don't know USCF rules partly because they aren't free (how crazy is that) but I do have some familiarity with FIDE rules. Under FIDE rules, there is no claiming for draw based on drawing chances etc. The FIDE arbiter has no discretion to evaluate how a game would go except to say whether one or both sides are mathematically capable of mating against worst play. The only claims are optional ones for threefold repetition or 50 moves.

Under FIDE rules, Black running out of time should have traded something for Pawn, then under Article 9.6 he can't lose: "...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."

For FIDE, it depends on if Appendix G is in effect and if the event doesn't have increment or delay, then there is a mechanism for a draw where an opponent "can't win by normal means" and requires input and the decision of an arbiter. One such decision is adding a clock with delay/increment and giving the opponent not claiming an extra 2 minutes to prove a win or the claimant to show it is a draw.

http://www.fide.com/fide/handbook.html?id=171&view=article

Yes - the composition world doesn't operate Appendix G, so I've not met that one. Also, I guess it doesn't require that the opponent be able to win by normal means in the time available to him, but that a win by normal means exists. I guess also it also doesn't depend on the skill of the opponent. So KBNvK is not a draw, until the guy with KBN decides to claim. KBN guy must be making plausible moves, not just vibrating a piece. But he doesn't have to be able to explain to the arbiter the algorithm for mating with KBNvK.

I think Appendix G is more of a shortcut to prevent trying to win on the clock along with the idea that the normal draw rules allow for help mates (mate by any possible series of moves). It is very uncommon, since most FIDE time controls are going to have increment or delay anyway.