Wrong insufficient material rule

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?

A way to win for white? Not in the position posted...

The point is it shouldn't be ruled insufficient material by an automated system, not that white would win in a practical game.

I see - I wasn't imagining that black could actually go on to help white to mate him. I wonder how you could code for that situation...

This can be a real problem in positions like this:

Here black can let his time run out and draw

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

Yes, help mate is possible, but so are the rules on chess.com: see the last section of http://support.chess.com/Knowledgebase/Article/View/40/0/how-do-i-claim-a-draw.

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.

Was it a regular OTB game or online Blitz?

On ICC, for example, this is considered a draw, against the official FIDE- rules.  In an OTB game you should have won this. But many arbiters don't know the rules themselves. There was a game between Socko and Foisor at the 2008 Women's Chess Championship, with K+N v.s. K+N where the arbiter did not have a clue and gave a draw... He was overruled later. 

http://en.chessbase.com/home/TabId/211/PostId/4004893

Did you even read the OPs post?

Thank you all for the answers. @Jenium it was a bullet game here on chess.com, @Sred i have read the link and understand that now, but it's still a bit strange because then a theoretically won position with 2N vs.pawn would be a draw as well.

"Finally, note that in cases where the opponent has insufficient material to mate (lone King, King + Knight, King + Bishop, King + 2 Knights) a draw will be automatically declared where there is a time-out."

This is moronic.  K + 2 knights is not insufficient material.  Who codes this BS?

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.

Yes. Could you elaborate what's wrong with my answer?

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 an arbiter. 

*USCF wording (equivalent to FIDE 6.9 and 10.2.a) 

Very good point. That would indeed be extremely strange.

I guess if the list in parenthesis was supposed to give the only cases where it will be ruled insufficient material then that does explain it.  What makes the list absurd is 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.

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.