Is this a mistake?

@rubixcube9 said in #1:
> In this game, I got flagged when my opponent had insufficient material - is this a mistake, or am I missing something?

You’re missing the FAQ.

actually it is impossible to checkmate white cuz if white doesn't goes to corner black couldn't checkmate

So you want a draw in every endgame which cannot be won by force? How should this work?

@Sarg0n
I want FIDE to change this rule especially regarding forced mates.
The rule should be rephrased and changed to that 'unforced mates in endgame should be considered as draw'. If no, then it clear shows that Knights side wants lone king to blunder or wait till 50 move to draw by 50 move rule or wait for timeout.
I agree with that but there are limited of such kind and won't make significant changes in other cases on changing rule.
Like a bishop vs bishop endgame with opposite coloured checkmate should also be called draw. Even a complete newbie won't blunder like that to get checkmated.

So if white plays 1. e4 and times out, they shouldn’t lose because black doesn’t have a forced mate?

RB-R is a table-base most of the time. However, Black doesn't have to move. In case of being flagged he can claim draw because there is no forced win.

People, people. Think two moves ahead!

Sarg0n showing RickRenegade's opposite coloured bishops endgame checkmate (bullet game) incoming

@Dario19503 said in #17:
> Sarg0n showing RickRenegade's opposite coloured bishops endgame checkmate (bullet game) incoming

@rdaysky
I meant when there are less pieces around 5 or lower only in such situations. Also, it should check for any case of forced lines. If one side has advantage and position is not fortress then game should go on as it is. But if position is equal, suppose rook vs rook, then it should be deemed as draw by no forced mate. The clarification is obvious for human, don't know why FIDE is so sleepy in understanding that!

@Akbar2thegreat said in #14:
> @Sarg0n
> I want FIDE to change this rule especially regarding forced mates.
> The rule should be rephrased and changed to that 'unforced mates in endgame should be considered as draw'. If no, then it clear shows that Knights side wants lone king to blunder or wait till 50 move to draw by 50 move rule or wait for timeout.
> I agree with that but there are limited of such kind and won't make significant changes in other cases on changing rule.
> Like a bishop vs bishop endgame with opposite coloured checkmate should also be called draw. Even a complete newbie won't blunder like that to get checkmated.

I give that zero chances of happening. It has already been tried, and did not work out well. Perhaps the federation that had tried to keep a rule that would handle what you are considering is the USCF. This was in their rule on "insufficient losing chances". However, in the latest USCF rules there is this: (see the USCF web site for the rules)

"14H. Claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death.
No claim of insufficient losing chances in sudden death will be allowed."

For non-sudden death, see rule 13C for what happens on a time forfeit. Basically, if you have "mating material" and your opponent oversteps the time limit, then you win.

There is an exception clause 14H1 that can be announced during the tournament. However, I think USCF tournaments are not going to use that much. It is just too much of a hassle for the TDs, and I think there may be a push to follow FIDE rules more closely.

Any USCF TDs that can comment on these cases?