I believe there was a massive uproar, commotion, hoopla and general pie-throwing, at the end of which these rules were implemented. It was programmed while the rebels were still well within mortar range and the jelly donuts were falling day and night.
Yeah, well... maybe I'm completely overacting 
... there are practical positions where these cases are not insufficient material and in every case the king + two knights is sufficient material.
I guess if anything they should call it the insufficent losing chances rule.
Good point in the last sentence. While NNK is sufficient material, in most cases it requires cooperation of the opponent who needs to wilfully allow his K pushed out of the center.
Speaking of FIDE rule 6.9 mentioned elsewhere in this thread, not so long ago it used to say "The game is drawn when a position is reached from which a checkmate cannot occur by any possible series of legal moves, even with the most unskilled play." and the "unskilled" was arguably subject to interpretation and therefore facilitating inconsistent rulings.
It seems to me that the removal of the "unskilled play" phrase effectively codifies the past interpretation that "unskilled" == "purposefully and moronically suicidal."
Whether or not this is consistent with common sense and the spirit of the game, is, of course, debatable.
This topic continually comes up. Chess.com have combined two rules, insufficient mating material* (which applies after the flag falls), and insufficient losing chances* (which applies before the flag falls and requires adjudication), into a single rule and called their rule insufficient material.
This was necessary because, on chess.com, there is no way to stop the clock and call a arbiter.
*USCF wording (equivalent to FIDE 6.9 and 10.2.a)
This is the answer. People can stop arguing now.
We can stop arguing, but that doesn't mean we will stop arguing.
See the following link, particularly posts 23, 24 and 25.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/help-support/no-mating-material--draw?page=1
I believe there was a massive uproar, commotion, hoopla and general pie-throwing, at the end of which these rules were implemented. It was programmed while the rebels were still well within mortar range and the jelly donuts were falling day and night.
You need to post more, haha.
Let's make it happen!
@gJKASTRIOTI I do not want or need to show how smart I am but the information I got here may prove important in many positions, like for example: I have minor piece or rook + some pawns against a bishop and 10 seconds left on the clock. Normally I would have to decide if I spend time on exchanging the bishop or not. It is important for some blitz as well as most of the bullet games.
What everyone forgets is that there is no one set of chess rules. FIDE have their rules, the USCF have their rules, and Chess.com have their rules . Each set of rules is slightly different (I imagine that other organizations also have rules that differ slightly from each other) . You have to know whose rules apply to the game that you are playing.
Maybe it's a case of, the code is fine for 99.99999% of the time, and the effort required for the 0.000001% isn't worth the effort
Only allow insufficient material rule when the opponent has only the king (I think this is how other sites do it).
Then add some special cases like pawnless with same color bishops I guess.
Making a rule would be really easy.
If the player who stays with time on the clock has a queen, a rook or a pawn, he wins.
If he has a bishop or a knight, he wins if the player who ran out of time has a pawn, a bishop or a knight (also a rook if it's NvsR
Black to move wins easily. But it sounds like from chess.coms information that they would declare this a draw if white flagged.
insufficient material should be very simple:
-no pawns left and the following:
- 2 knights vs king (or king & 2 knights or king & one minor)
- 1 minor vs king (etc.. as above)
- king vs king
there are other draws, but anythign else on the board *could* be won if the other side played to lose and therefore is not a forced draw.
Or, conversely, any game can be won against someone who plays to lose if there is 1 pawn on the board, or 1 rook/queen on the board, or knight & bishop on the board, or more than any of those.
2 knights vs king and 2 knights vs king + other pieces could also be a forced mate...the opponent simply has to play badly.
2 knights vs king and 2 knights vs king + other pieces could also be a forced mate...the opponent simply has to play badly.
Good point, 2 N can win if the opponent is trying to lose. So take that one out.
I just played a bullet game which reached the following position:
I played as white and here my opponent "lost" on time. The game was declared a draw in view of insufficient material. But obviosly there is a way to win for white:
For example black loses his queen and four pawns and promotes a knight. Then he places Ka1 and Na2 and white Kc2 and Bb2 mate. So why was it a draw?
What are you, playing your 3 year old sister? that's like saying having only two horses it's not insufficient material, like, seriously. I might be 1100 of rating (or less) but even i know that...
insufficient material should be very simple:
-no pawns left and the following:
- 2 knights vs king (or king & 2 knights or king & one minor)
- 1 minor vs king (etc.. as above)
- king vs king
there are other draws, but anythign else on the board *could* be won if the other side played to lose and therefore is not a forced draw.
Or, conversely, any game can be won against someone who plays to lose if there is 1 pawn on the board, or 1 rook/queen on the board, or knight & bishop on the board, or more than any of those.
Actually you can win with two knights
Insuffiencient material is when 1 side has completely lost all of their pawns and then if time runs out on the opponent with the remaining pawns, it is a draw.
Funny how entire books have been written on pawnless endgames... they should call it insufficient losing chances.