I was at a chess tournament (playing, not directing) watching the second board in the final round. I was interested in the result because a draw would give me clear second place and therefore more money.
as I watched, at the end one players flag fell (he only had a king and bishop and pawn) and his opponent called his flag, and they agreed draw per no mating material. (the opponent who called the flag had a bishop and a knight) I felt that the ruling of a draw was incorrect because even though he only had a king, and knight mate was theoritically possible because of course the opponent could throw his king in front of the pawn and mate himself (would never happen but theoretically possible) but i kept my mouth shut cause the draw gave me more money?
am I right, should of it been declared a win for the person with king or knight, or was the draw the correct ruling?
sorry, he did not have a bishop and knight, he only had a knight! … he he… bishop and knight is obviously mating material 
Per USCF rules the draw is correct. FIDE would rule it a win for the nonflagging player with the K+N.
Look at rules 14D and 14E. Under 14D, a game is automatically drawn when a “dead position” is reached – a position where there does not exist a sequence of legal moves leading to either side checkmating the other.
Under 14E, a player cannot win on time unless he has either a queen, a rook, a pawn, two bishops, two knights, bishop and knight, or a forced mate. (And in the case of two knights, the opponent must have at least one pawn.) This rule thus provides an operational definition for the common but vague term “mating material”.
FIDE apparently has an equivalent for 14D, but not 14E.
Bill Smythe
The counterpart of rule 14H in the FIDE laws of chess is article 10.2. However, article 10.2 is more expansive than 14H, since it also covers cases in which “the opponent is making no effort to win the game by normal means.” I believe that in a situation which would normally be covered by rule 14E, if the inferior side is just making moves to try to run the superior side out of time, the superior side could claim a draw under the provisions of article 10.2.
Also note carefully the statement of article 10.2.d that the arbiter’s decision is final and is not subject to appeal.
Hmm I don’t think that’s worded as carefully as one would have hoped. I haven’t seen a case where the Chief Arbiters decision cannot be appealed to an Appeals Committee.
Time for a query to RTR.
That might work if the claiming player’s time has not yet expired. USCF 14E, however, even allows a draw to be ruled if the superior side has already run out of time.
Bill Smythe
If I remember correctly, Takis called this out fairly distinctly during the Internet arbiter’s seminar last July. I recall him saying that arbiters should not be hesitant about making rulings concerning article 10.2 claims because that provision exists.