Timeout: Draw or win?

        After Black played 1…Ng4, White ran out of time and Black promptly claimed the full point. However, because White had touched the knight just before his time expired, he appealed, claiming a draw instead. The arbiter agrees with White’s interpretation of the rules regarding draws, and declares the game a draw. Black subsequently appeals to the appeals committee, who then award the full point to Black.

As I understand this issue, a draw is awarded when no sequence of legal moves can lead to checkmate after a timeout. According to the arbiter’s interpretation of the touch-move rule, as soon as White touched the knight, thus making White’s only legal move 2. Qxg4+, there are no more sequences of legal moves leading to mate because stalemate arises after Black’s mandatory recapture.

The appeals committee considered that because White did not physically move the Queen to the g4 square, the move Qxg4+ has not yet been played, and that the touch-move rule is not strong to imply that a move has actually been made.

a)    Was the appeals committee correct in giving Black the full point?

Yes they were, as you said 'White ran out of time and Black promptly claimed the full point' this means that black wins, unless white can prove a claim for not enough mating material (which means any amount of legal moves after the time ran out, would never lead to any mate). If white wanted to get the draw, he needed to have played Qxg4 and pressed his clock (a move is not complete until the clock is pressed.) Or try his luck by stopping the clock and claiming 10.2 on the grounds by his next move and stating that he does not have enough time to make his next move (which probably won't get granted). But when his clock ran out of time, he could not make any more claims.

        What really confused us was the touch-move rule here, the one stating that any piece once touched must be captured, or moved provided that no illegal move is made. Suppose at the start of the game White touches his b1 knight deliberately: his possible legal moves suddenly decrease from twenty to only two (Na3 or Nc3).

        Since White had touched and lifted up the black knight on g4, his next move had to involve taking that knight. White's queen was the only piece that could take the knight, and under normal circumstances the arbiter would always enforce the touch-move rule, even if it meant a person had to accidentally sacrifice a queen.

        Essentially, what was disputed here is whether "any amount of legal moves after the time ran out would lead to any mate". Obviously, 2. Qf1?? Qxf1# is a line leading to mate, but White said due to the touch-move rule, the first White move and the only legal White move must be 2. Qxg4+. After this move, it can be proven that there cannot be any mate.

        The juxtaposition of the touch-move and time-out rules was indeed new to us, and we were quite uncertain whether our decision was correct. 

        Thank you LazyChessPlayer for your imput; BTW, are you using FIDE or USCF rules regarding no more live claims after a player's time has expired? 

Under normal circumstances yes, but here the flag fell before the move could be completed. It cannot have been the intention of the one-touch rule drafter that this would supercede the clock.

For example: I am in time trouble and I lift my B. Before I place the B on a square my flag drops. It would be nonsense to suggest that the one touch rule means I have to place that B on a legal square and have that move recorded officially as the last move in the game.

Wow, that's a fascinating problem.

This is a tough one and I honestly don't know the answer.

Yes it is interesting. And any decent lawyer would argue exactly as white tried to.

But the answer is very simple. If the last move was QxN the result is a draw. If the last move was ...NG4 the result is a win for black.

So you just need to decide if the one-touch rule as written (or intended) is that it should in all cases take precedence over the clock. There is no evidence for this whatsoever.

'are you using FIDE or USCF rules regarding no more live claims after a player's time has expired?'

I only use FIDE, I do not live in America, and I do not know how USCF would differ. 

Winning on time is a win condition, after you have ran out of time, you cannot make any more moves. So you cannot make a claim for a future position. 

Stalemate and checkmate are deffinite. If you played your move and your time ran out, and he responded, not noticing your time ran out and pressed his clock, then he cannot claim the win, cause the position is staltemate. This would also work if the position was checkmate after the move was done and the time is 0:00, the board position determines first result (The current board position, nothing about what could/would happen.)

Sorry for the necromancy, but FIDE rules state that if a move ends the game, it must be made, not necessarily finished. (So if you mate, you don't need to press the clock). If white took the knight at g4 and moved queen there, it's a draw from that point. But yeah, touching it is not enough.

Agreed that touching the Knight is not enough.

Coming back from the dead here too !

There is indeed a distinction in FIDE rules between a move being "made" (piece moved) and it being "completed" (clock pressed). You are correct that certain "moves" end the game before they are "completed" (checkmate; stalemate; insufficient material). It is also possible to "complete" your move by making your subsequent move if you forgot to press the clock after the previous move...... Art 6.2.1.2

So in the example in this thread, the question is "did the act of white touching the black knight constitute the move Qxg4+ ?"

Latest FIDE rules state

"4.3     
Except as provided in Article 4.2, if the player having the move touches on the chessboard,with the intention of moving or capturing:

4.3.2
one or more of his opponent’s pieces, he must capture the first piece touched that can be captured"

I would argue that the act of touching the knight (while white still had time on his clock) means that the move Qxg4+ must be made.

The fact that his clock flagged before he could physically  move his Queen and press the clock, I would argue does not mean the move does not stand. The touch of the black knight compels him to make the move, and I have already demonstrated that a move can still be legal even if the clock is not pressed. Having being deemed to have made the move, and his flag falling the arbiter now must decide if black wins on timeout. Clearly not, as the only move black can make leads to stalemate.

I am arguing differently from my post of 5 years ago, as at that time I did not appreciate the distinction between a move being "made" and "completed", and that the latter is not necessary in all circumstances for a legal move to be "made". I do realise this is a grey area however.

4.5 makes it clear that the touch-move rule has no force if the touched piece has no legal moves.

With no time left on your clock, none of your pieces can legally be moved.

The original post made clear the N was touched before time expired.

I chose my words carefully. I am arguing the case for a draw being correct. I do not claim to be right. Indeed this is a case where the Preface to the rules of chess would be very important. I would be happy to argue for both sides of the case

So what about this position?

Interesting discussion here https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/rule-of-touched-piece?page=1

In post 9  it seems the same question was put to an arbiters panel. Post 13 seems to show the majority agreed with the view that the move was not made by simply touching a piece.

If we agree with the majority of the arbiters panel (see my post above #15), then white has flagged, the board position is as depicted, and black needs to show that he could "win by a series of legal moves". Black would show that 1. a3 Rxa3+ 2. bxa3 Ra2# is a possible series and so white would lose.

If we agree with the the minority of the arbiters panel then we must accept the last move of the game was 1. Qxc1 #

I think I now tend to agree with the first decision, that white loses. But it is interesting a a minority of the arbiters panel disagreed.

Thank you so much for the post. I’m a novice but really appreciate rule discussion. Due to circumstances i cannot play OTB and probably never will, so the discussion is thought provoking for me. What a fresh reprieve from all the useless and childish posts. I just wanted to say “Thank you.”

Try this one:

White played 1. Bg2+ and announced a mate-in-three.

Black chuckled and replied "I'm afraid you've mated YOURSELF!". Then he played 1. ... d5 blocking White's check and uncovering his own, and said "Mate".

White captured Black's Pawn en passant 2. cxd6 e.p. and repeated his mate claim.

Black shook his head "You can't move youre Pawn! You're in check!"

White replied "No... your Pawn never reached the d5 square. It was captured en passent as it crossed the d6 square. So you never blocked my original Bishop check. You can't mate me while your King is sitting in check!"

The two players argued, but cound not reach agreement. So they submitted the case to the Arbiter.

What ruling did the Arbiter make?