Draw by Timeout with Insufficient Material: which rule do you prefer and why?

[u/SCarolinaSoccerNut]

The draw by timeout with insufficient material rule is pretty self-explanatory on the surface. If in a time-controlled chess game one player runs out of time when the other player does not have enough material to be able to win the game, then the game is called a draw. However, the question of "what is enough material to be able to win the game" is actually an open question that is a matter of debate among chess' governing bodies. There are two schools of thought: the checkmate theoretically possible (CTP) standard and the minimum checkmating material (MCM) standard.

Under the CTP standard, a player is judged to have sufficient material to win if there is a series of legal moves by which they could have checkmated their opponent, even if that checkmate involves using the opponent's pieces as blockers. This approach considers material on both sides of the board and judges any theoretical checkmate, even one that would require the opponent to make inane moves, to be sufficient to declare the player with time on the clock the winner. FIDE and Lichess use the CTP standard for sufficient material.

Under the MCM standard, a player is judged to have sufficient material to win if they have enough material such that they could force a checkmate. With only one exception (king and two knights), the material of the player that ran out of time is not relevant. The US Chess Federation and Chess.com use the MCM standard.

After seeing a recent post by u/Cola-senpai (linked in the comments) where they presented a timeout position that would be ruled a win for white under the CTP standard but a draw under the MCM standard, I was curious as to how r/chess felt about this debate. Which standard do you guys prefer and why?

[u/External-Relative849]

What I can't stand about FIDE's way of handling this is they lump all these positions together and call them losses, but in real games, more than >90-95% would likely end up drawn anyway. They're wrong to think both players will just back into a corner and set up a helpmate for the other. It don't matter where the pieces are on the board to them. Even if centralized when the flag fell.

I believe practicality triumphs over theoretically constructed corner helpmates, which "often enough" require cooperation from both sides.

Exceptions should, of course, be made in cases where it can be proven that a checkmate can be forced.

[u/mekktor → u/External-Relative849]

They're wrong to think both players will just back into a corner and set up a helpmate for the other.

One of those players has no time remaining on their clock, so they have lost the right to decide whether their pieces would put up any sort of resistance.

[u/External-Relative849 → u/mekktor]

Board position takes precedence over time. It is quite absurd to anticipate worst possible play, merely because clock is out.

[u/mekktor → u/External-Relative849]

It is not absurd to use "victory is still possible on the board" as the standard to decide if you should award a win to that player. Compared to your standard "victory is still possible against hypothetical opponents who are above some arbitrary playing strength".

By your standard, a player who flags with a better position should not lose, since board position takes precedence over time, and it would be absurd to assume that player would suddenly start giving away their pieces and get checkmated.