Game drawn when it should be a win!

Yeah, I understand what is wanted. I agree, that I think that he site's implementation is good enough.

Though, as a thought experiment, I don't think it hurts to discuss what it would actually take and whether or not it would end up being any better.

To clarify, the site does not currently implement FIDE rules under 5.2.2 at all but I think that very few positions fall under 6.9 where mate is impossible and I agree that an exhaustive check for all positions is infeasible. I would guess that the vast majority of material counts and positions under flag fall have mate possible with help-mates (any series of legal moves), if they don't fall under 5.2.2. That is a gut feeling but probably accurate. and these are already ruled a win by the side with time.

The USCF insufficient material counts, I believe, are the ones where any effort would be feasible to look at, in conjunction with FIDE 6.9 situations. In those, I think I have mentioned most cases (in post 22) and I also think most positions with more material are trivially reducible to one of them (through worst play by the defending side). Again, baring 5.2.2 type positions, which get missed in any method.

I just went back and edited post 22 a little. I think with 2N it is always possible to mate on flag fall for FIDE, regardless of the other side's material (again, disregarding 5.2.2).

I would think that the difficult positions to evaluate would be those where the side that timed out had an overwhelming amount of material compared to their opponent (the OP's game is a good example).

As an aside, I have had several disagreements with people when I show that checkmate is possible.  The typical response was that "no-one would make a stupid move like that."

Material count really doesn't matter too much when it comes to 6.9; it always assumes that the player with material will walk into the mate, even if it requires hanging a bunch of material.

I think the USCF implementation makes much more sense, however, it requires some subjectivity. The FIDE rule doesn't. edit Well, the basic USCF insufficient rules don't really take much subjectivity either, since it is a simple material count

 There is always the 2008 Women's World Championship where one of the players (I don't remember the names) showed that checkmate was possible, but the arbiter ruled the game a draw because checkmate wasn't forced.  She won the game on appeal.

Never going to claim that arbiters or TDs are infallible (or that I'm not )

 I looked that one up.  Quite interesting:  K+N vs K+N.  Who would have thought it.

On second thought, I saw the video and she immediately showed the arbiter how checkmate was possible.  Must be one of those things that GMs know.

well you can think of it this way: the mated king in the corner has 3 squares to move to. 1 is taken by its own color knight, the other two are taken by the king, the mating knight delivered checkmate.

I can see it now that you pointed it out.  I haven't given any thought to "checkmate by any series of legal moves."  The tournaments that I play in use time delays, and I've only played one game where a player timed out (my opponent).  That was a draw because I had insufficient material.  Since the game was played under USCF rules,  checkmate by any series of legal moves wasn't applicable.

His continued whining that the site should change the rules is where the "stupid" part comes in.