The subtleties of touch move rule

10.2 If the player, having the move, has less than two minutes left on his clock, he may claim a 

draw before his flag falls. He shall summon the arbiter and may stop the clocks. (See 

Article 6.12.b)

But in Blitz, 

b. Article 10.2 and Appendix A.4.c do not apply

It pays to read through your federation's full ruleset so you know all these things...and may even be a good idea to memorize the reference to some of the lesser-known sections (such as this) so you can direct a TD who is unaware of the rule to find it quickly.

So in short in a blitz game its a fight until the flag falls unless there is insufficient material.Am i right?

Correct. Or if you agree to a draw. 

Thanks for the replies guys.i was just really pissed off because in the first game,he tried claiming a draw in a drawish position.I wanted to play on but i allowed him to get the draw as a friendly gesture .Then in the next game the first diagram happened when he slides the Q to b6 then retracts it to c5.i wanted him the drop it to b6.as a friendly gesture again,i offered him a draw just to settle matters with.he didnt accept it.Grrr

You make a good point. Apparently the KNSB uses the same regulations as FIDE, and this rule also applies here. I didn't know that. Still seems weird to me though, the rule implying winning on time is not a 'normal means of winning'.

Stop being friendly and start becoming ruthless. Take my advice, I tell you. :)

MaartenSmit: Think of it like this, you're supposed to win the chess game within the time constraints, not win via the time constraints. If you've successfully defended your position to what is an easy win, and your opponent happens to have a way to make you burn time on irrelevant moves, you've essentially won the game within the time constraints, so you at least can get a draw. I'd compare it to having a totally winning game, and blundering to allow your opponent a perpetual check.

Also, is blitz touch-move, or clock-move? Casually it's often played as clock-move anyway.

Yes, you're supposed to win the game within the time constraints. Not get a winning position within the time constraints. You have to be prepared for whatever defense your opponent tries. If you have such an easily winning position, you should be able to win it within 2 minutes. [/offtopic]

Blitz is touch-move as far as I'm concerned.

I agree with MaartenSmit if you cannot WIN the game within the time constraints you should lose or not have time constraints to start with. What's the point in throwing out the rules you have agreed to the entire game in the last two minutes because your opponent can perp check you and you don't have time for a 50 move draw. Too bad should have seen it coming or managed time better IMO. But I'm not a ruling chess body.

Ok, this is slightly different, but a question about the rights/responsibilities of a tournament director.

I was playing a 60 minute tournament game (no increment) at a club recently, and won on time. I was ahead on time, but in a lost position. I continued to play moves, and my opponent's flag fell. The director told me afterwards that he had considered stepping in and declaring a draw (there were still both pawns and pieces on the board).

Can the director/arbiter do that? 

The arbiter has the right to do anything. 

But this one is strange.

Check the FIDE laws please.

They can, if they feel you're not still playing the board and instead are just trying to flag your opponent, assuming FIDE laws of chess, but should refrain from that as much as possible.

Chess used to be played without a clock. If you look at the clock as...unnatural...to the game of chess, then it would make sense to reduce its impact whenever possible, such as when one player could blunder 2 pieces and still win easily, given enough time.

For the record, I don't really disagree with you, (I'm kind of neutral on the subject) but am trying to come up with reasonable explanations for why someone thought it was a good idea.

Let's not confuse this though.  Actually, in USCF, it's not whether a 1400 would beat a GM 9 out of 10.  It's simply "Would a 1400 player have virtually no chance of losing to a GM", in essence.

Let's also not confuse "drawish" with "insufficient losing chances".

WKa6, WRf1, BKe5, BRh8, under all circumstances here, since there is no immediate skewer, an ILC claim should be granted

WKg1, WPa2, WPb2, WPc2, WPd3, WRf1, BKg8, BPa7, BPb7, BPc7, BPd6, BRe8, an ILC Claim should NOT be granted.  Yeah, it's equal, and drawish, but a 1400 could lose this to a GM.

Let's also keep in mind though, at least when it comes to USCF, a delay clock takes precedence over an analog clock, even if it's Black with the analog clock and White with the delay clock (normally Black has choice of equipment, but White can supercede the clock in this case), and you will never have this problem.

In the diagram posted there is an imminent fork though. The best white can do it to trade the rook for the knight, leaving black with an outside passes pawn. I haven't played it all the way through, but isn't that a win for black?

If black is to move and he plays Kb4, seeing the tactic, white's best move is Rxb5, to which black responds Kxb5. White then plays Kxd6. If black then pushes the pawn to promotion, yes, it's a win. If he plays, say, Kb4 first, then you have a more interesting position with Ke7, a2, d6, a1=Q, d7, and while it's still a black win, it takes a modicum of technique to capture the d-pawn and not lose the queen. 

Yes, with best play (and even not quite best play) it's a black win, but that's enough technique I'd want to see my opponent prove it.

Pandas don't mess around...

Schrodingers (of course I know it isn't Schrodinger) and their cats don't mess around...