K+N v K+P = sufficient material?

Oops, let me change that example ...

Correction:  try WK on f1 and WN on a8, BK on h1 and BP on h2.  Then White touches his N.  Checkmate is impossible now, right?

Scarblac pointed this out too. You're correct (although you're example isn't, apart from anything else, touching the knight isn't part of a position). An example would be:

I haven't been able to construct a forced stalemate. Is anybody up for that?

Edit: actually, the type of condition you suggested is relevant to the question. Of course, with the knight side to move, the black side can never time out, but is interesting to wonder what would be the ruling if the pawn side touched the pawn, which could only capture the knight, but timed out before making the move.

Or, even in your example (it is useful after all) if white touches the knight and only then realizes and claim the flag fall.

I think this is something for the Geurt Gijssen Column at chesscafe.

You're all pointlessly splitting hairs...

That's the fun of it. Incidentally, I don't think it's possible to construct a forced stalemate with this material. Maybe the position I mentioned, disregarding lateral translations, is the only forced draw.

mathijs, I don't understand why your diagram is a forced draw. Can't black play Kb1 and they go on to construct a mate from there?

Oh, you're completely right, Loomis (at some point constructing these positions I see pawns being either colour...). That means we have yet to find a forced draw  with this material.

A move is only completed once you have made it and pressed your clock. So if your flag falls before this happens, nothing you have done so far counts.

I think I finally found a real forced non-loss for the pawn side:

Marvellosity, that's not completely true. If you make a mating move, for instance, you no longer have to press your clock. I'm not sure whether the touch move rule doesn't apply after a flag fall. Take this position:

Regardless, the example derived from jkpastorius idea is still interesting, because here the touching of the piece was not by the  side that timed out.

Wait up ... I can see how "touching the N (or any piece) isn't (inherently) part of a position," but I don't see why it isn't considered a possibility within the position.  Having certain material doesn't inherently mean making the best moves, so why would it preclude the (stupid but possible) idea of touching the wrong piece and creating stalemate?  Why, when considering what's possible (not what's forced), would touching the wrong piece be ruled out?

This is interesting stuff.

I think I'm going to step out of this post and just read from here on.  You all seem much better-informed than I am about these matters.

your flag falls you lose

Jkpastorius, I'm not completely sure I understand you. From many K+N vs K+p positions stalemates are possible through some sequence of moves. However, I haven't found a position yet in which stalemate is forced. That, or some other forced non-loss for the pawn side (like I gave in #31) is what is necessary to disprove the statement "From all K+N vs K+p positions a mate for the knight side is possible through some sequence of moves".

However, as I conceded, the idea of including the touch rule does lead to two very interesting situations in practical play. I'll outline them here in more detail:

(from your idea) Black's flag has fallen, but white touches his knight before he notices this. He claims the flag fall before making a move, however. What would be the outcome of this game?

I'd like to pose these questions (plus the one I raised in #32) to Geurt Gijssen (an international Arbiter with a column at chesscafe on questions like these), but since this is all basicly your idea and I wouldn't want to steal your fifteen minutes of (relative) fame, perhaps you could ask him these questions?

Because you say to the arbiter "clearly I'm not stupid enough to do this" and he says "indeed" and that's that.

Alas, I'm forced to post again.  Mathijs, I could ask him (GG), but I think you've got a better grip on these issues.  So I'll do it if you prefer (send contact info), but otherwise you can go ahead and I'll get my fame when I become a GM, haha.  Marvellosity, I would hope to have enough sense to tell the arbiter exactly what you wrote.

Well if you, don't care either, I'll just send him the questions. I'll post his response here too, but that may be a while. His columns are monthly and I fear we may just have missed the boat for this month.

Well, Mr.Gijssen has answered the question (here) (edit: updated link):

Question: Dear Mr. Gijssen, an interesting discussion online lead to the following questions regarding K+N vs. K+P. If the player with the pawn suffers a flag fall, he usually loses because mate is possible. However, what if

1. Black to move in the following position:

Black touches his pawn, but fails to complete his only legal move (exf4) before his flag falls and the flag fall is claimed?

2. White to move in the following position:

Black’s flag has fallen. White (not aware of the flag fall) touches his knight, but realizes before making a move (which would lead to stalemate) that Black’s flag has fallen?

On a related issue, what if, in the position

White touches his b-pawn, but fails to complete his only legal move (b6-b7) before his flag falls and the flag fall is claimed? Thank you sincerely in advance, Mathijs Janssen (The Netherlands)

Answer:

I refer to Article 6.9

Except where one of the Articles: 5.1.a, 5.1.b, 5.2.a, 5.2.b, 5.2.c applies, if a player does not complete the prescribed number of moves in the allotted time, the game is lost by the 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.

In my opinion position three is the simplest to answer. The player of the white pieces overstepped the time, but the position is such that the player of the black pieces, having only a bare king, can never checkmate the white king. Therefore, the draw is completely covered by Article 6.9.

Positions one and two are more complicated. The question is: Do we have to consider the position after the touched piece was played? I am inclined to say “Yes.” These two examples are of forced moves, but I would like to add another position:

It is obvious that Black has the move. In this position the player of the black pieces oversteps the time. Is it lost for him? I do not think so, because the player of the white pieces cannot win by any series of legal moves. The only legal move is forced: Kxe7 and the remaining position is a draw. I consider positions one and two analogous to this example.

Good post, very interesting......

Just wondering, what's the USCF interpretation of this rule?  I know it's 14D, but I don't have my rulebook with me.