Chess.com doesn't know what "insufficient mating material" means

A few times now I've won games on time and been awarded draws, in situations like this game: https://www.chess.com/game/live/47689231337

In this game my opponent (apparently a National Master) couldn't figure out a winning endgame due to time trouble so for personal reasons I decided to flag him as is my prerogative. Apparently this is a draw because I have 'insufficient mating material' as per the rule: https://support.chess.com/article/268-my-opponent-ran-out-of-time-why-was-it-a-draw

However, a bishop against a knight is SUFFICIENT material to mate my opponent:

The debate has been held a number of times.

Most people accept the idea that requiring the ability to force mate without help is  a reasonable standard.

I don't see why most people would accept that, but if that is the case the rules need to be adjusted to reflect that, it needs to say something like "You must have material which can be used to force mate" because the current rule is a nonsense.

However, where do you draw the line with being able to force mate without help? NB vs B? NB vs N? BB vs NN? As it stands there isn't even a defined rule for this. On other chess websites they simply follow the rule that they lay out "sufficient mating material" means just that, whereas on chess.com they say "sufficient mating material" but they actually mean some other nonsense?

It's a joke. The reason they haven't written a rule which reflects what the system actually does is because they can't because such a rule would look really stupid when set out in prose.

https://support.chess.com/article/128-what-does-insufficient-mating-material-mean

This attempts to explain the rules here.

Laws of Chess:
"6.9      
Except where one of Articles 5.1.1, 5.1.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 applies, 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."
https://handbook.fide.com/chapter/E012018 
This is incorrectly implemented on this site.
Best is to play with increment, then you can avoid such situations.

And another article:

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-chess-games-can-end-8-ways-explained

If this were a FIDE owned site, and people were playing classic time controls, that might be correct to say.

But it isn't and they aren't.

And chess.com needed to have a set of rules that computers could follow.

And they couldn't afford the time or effort to lay out every possible permutation.

And there was no army of on-call arbiters available 24/7.

And so they made some decisions about "insufficient material" that satisfied most rational players.

I'm sorry.

Are you saying that about the original position laid out by the OP, where his opponent timed out and the OP only had a bishop and king against a rook, knight and king? :

Remember that until move 70 I had a pawn on h7 which my opponent tried to sacrifice his rook for (I knew that if I took the rook the game would end automatically and I didn't want there to be any ambiguity to the fact that I flagged my opponent even though B vs N is also sufficient mating material regardless of the rook).

SO, if he flagged before he took the pawn the argument is that I could have queened the pawn and checkmated my opponent and therefore I would have been awarded the win... but in what universe does my opponent allow me to queen that pawn? It's just as implausible that my opponent lets me queen the pawn and checkmate him as the B vs RN mate which I showed above.

This is the crux of the debate right here. With the pawn I'd get a win, without it I get a draw, even though in both cases I objectively have sufficient mating material and just as much chance of practically winning the game. However, the clock is paramount. Why bother having a time control at all if the clock is not paramount?

Let's just call this what it is: laziness. You say chess.com "can't figure out the computations required to properly implement the rule as defined by both chess.com and FIDE" well other chess websites have figured it out and I happen to know that one of these sites uses open source so chess.com could just steal their solution?

Chess.com, either state what rule you're enforcing or implement the rule you claim to be enforcing correctly, there's no excuse for this.

The site decided to implement a rule that is more in line with the US Chess rules on insufficient material to win on time and not the FIDE implementation where helpmates are allowed. 

In my opinion, the US Chess rules make more sense anyway and since the site hasn't changed the algorithm much since it's was implemented, they apparently agree.

I just showed why they don't make sense and no it's not a matter of opinion.

But since you think it is I'll ask you: to what extent does the US Rule make sense? In a theoretical draw where white has a pawn blockaded by opposition White gets the win if Black flags: this is a "helpmate" as you say. As much of a "helpmate" as B vs N or any number of endgames.

BN vs R, helpmate. BN vs B, helpmate. BB vs R, helpmate. Q vs NNBB, helpmate. More than that most of these are "helpmates" for whichever side flags.

It doesn't make any sense and the rule is not delivered as described. I don't care how much anyone thinks it makes sense; they're objectively wrong. The USCF should consider adjusting their rules too, but one problem at a time.

Yes who needs to take a pedantic, nit-picking, "objectively correct" approach to Rules when instead you could take a haphazard, flawed, common sense, "nonsensical" approach to Rules...

As I just explained the very concept of a "helpmate" is ridiculous BUT chess.com can enforce whatever stupid rules they like. As I said:

"Either state what rule you're enforcing or implement the rule you claim to be enforcing correctly."

If they want to enforce a rule it should be written and explained for all to see. As it stands, "sufficient mating material" is not an opinion, it's a provable assertion, and I have proven that B vs N or indeed B vs NRQetc. is sufficient to mate.

Have whatever opinion makes you happy, it won't change the facts.

Look, if I wanted to discuss metaphysics with a hippy I'd have gone to a Cafe in Paris.

If they meant to say "forced mates" they should have said that. Nobody was stopping them. If they were to say that it would be a ridiculously fraught rule for the example I gave earlier (btw, thank you for making me repeat myself twice now):

"In a theoretical draw where white has a pawn blockaded by opposition White gets the win if Black flags: this is a "helpmate" as you say. As much of a "helpmate" as B vs N or any number of endgames."

I don't think that Rules are a good realm for "benefit of the doubt" to apply. As I said earlier, if this were a big-money online tournament and a Super GM decided to question whether B vs N is "insufficient mating material" and why this rule had cost him thousands of dollars it'd make Chess.com, the USCF, or any other institution go a bit blue and red in the face trying to defend it.

So maybe Chess.com wants to get ahead of this issue and deal with it now while it's just little ol' me complaining?

The difference is mostly in that helpmates are not generally able to be forced (though there may be edge cases where a forced mate might exist with the material).

The rules are clearly given in the help articles.

https://support.chess.com/article/268-my-opponent-ran-out-of-time-why-was-it-a-draw

https://support.chess.com/article/128-what-does-insufficient-mating-material-mean

The problem is that in flagging wins/draws "helpmates" occur in more endgames than not. A forced win endgame is far rarer than an endgame where a "helpmate" would be required yet this assertion of the rule effectively says that they've arbitrarily decided what constitutes a forced mate, for example:

"This is because, counterintuitively, it is easier to check mate a king and another piece with two knights, than it is to checkmate a lone king with two knights." (https://support.chess.com/article/128-what-does-insufficient-mating-material-mean)

Okay so according to chess.com NN vs K is a draw but NN vs B is not a draw because it is easier to checkmate in that situation... see that word easier is a big problem because there are many pawn endgame positions where it's literally impossible to make any progress at all but if you or your opponent flags somebody gets awarded a win.

See how little sense this makes?

This must be why FIDE updated the rule; they probably started looking at which endgames had forced mates and which didn't and realised that defining a rule like this is untenable. Even if they could manage it, enforcing such a rule would be ridiculously difficult.

FiDE doesn't want arbiters involved in deciding game results. So their ruling just requires showing that mate is possible, which the players can show easily by setting up a mating position. 

The site could implement something much closer to FIDE rules, for the simpler meterial combinations, but have decided not to over many similar topics over the years. There's was a long topic a few years back where it was discussed in detail and they decided to go with essentially what they have now.

Regarding your comment about positions where it's impossible to make progress (e.g. something like locked pawns), that is a weakness of the system, but is pretty hard to program a check and likely impacts a very small percentage of games.

Forced mate, in a position where the side with time only has one or two pieces left (in the case of knights). Totally different situations.