Tricky question about FIDE rules

Recently I had to answer this question on a test about FIDE rules: "in this position, white plays Ndxc7+ and immediately after runs out of time. What's the result?"

My answer was considered valid, but the thing is even trickier than it looks. What do you think?

Iirc, the rules state that the player must be able to checkmate in a legal series of moves. The only legal series of moves is 1...Rxc7+ 2.Nxc7+ Rxc7+ 3.Kxc7#. So Black cannot checkmate White, so the result is a draw.

Not looking at the rules, I'd say it'd be fair it's a draw if white plays Nxc7 before flagging. If he runs out of time a hundred of a second before pressing the clock after Nxc7, white should lose.

Yes, this is a draw. It and similar positions have been discussed quite a bit on this site.

Simply put, since White ran out of time, white can't win. But since Black has no legal series of moves which win, Black can't win either. Therefore, it's a draw.

The way the question was stated was that White made his move by checking the Black King.  What was not stated, but implied, was that White was able to make the move prior to running out of time, and that his time ran out after completion of a legal move.  If this is true, then White made a legal move, putting Black in checkmate (i.e., Black is in check with no legal move for his King).  Therefore Black loses.  

On the other hand there is ambiguity in the statement, i.e., player X made a move and "immediately" ran out of time.  The word "immediately" needs to be further qualified.  The operative condition is whether player X runs out of time PRIOR TO making the move; if this occurs, then the move was illegal and player X, whose clock ran out, loses on time.

The move was completed before running out of time. We are all aware when a move finishes the game (e.g. checkmate, stalemate) the result prevails (the move has been completed althought the clock wasn't pulsed; art. 6.2.a.1). But in this case, even being a forced sequence of legal games and therefore mate is unavoidable, the first check doesn't finish the game, so I supposed it was a loss for white, since black has enough material. 

But the teacher, an international arbiter, said he would give it a draw, since black has enough material but in practice can't make use of it. I think Thomas and Vassili have expressed it even more precisely: as soon as white runs out of time, the situation described in art. 9.7 (no one can give mate by any possible combination of legal moves) is reached and it is a draw.

The funniest thing is my answer was considered correct by the teacher even if he disagreed. It has its point, he said, I wasn't the only one who gave it (I've completely changed my mind though). The most important is to keep a consistent criteria, to apply the same reasoning in similar scenarios, according to him. No answer would have been considered correct without an explanation.

What you have defined as checkmate is not checkmate. There are several ways to get out of check. If Black can take the piece that is checking, then it's not checkmate. That's the case here. 

The problem of course is that there is no way to avoid an eventual checkmate. But since the checkmate has not yet occurred on the board even after Ndc7 and White has run out of time to complete his combination, white can't win.

This is why increments of at least 30 sec should always be used ... 

That didn't help Magnus last year against Topalov tho. Surprisingly, there are quite a few cases of strong GMs losing on time in winning positions even with increments.

But here is the question I have.  When does FIDE consider a move, a move.

If White has hit the clock after Ndxc7 with time left, and Black takes on c7, and only then White Flags, it's clearly a draw as the only legal moves on the board would result in Black getting mated.

But here, White's Flag fell before he hit the clock on the first move.  The question is, is Ndxc7+ voided because he hasn't hit the clock, in which case Black would win because White had many legal moves at that point, or would the director say, White's only legal move is to take on c7 with the d-Knight because the d-Knight and the c7-pawn have both been touched, so by the "touch move rule", White's only legal move is 1.Ndxc7+, and so despite the fact that THAT move wasn't completed, that is White's only legal move given the touching circumstances, and it's a draw?

The question is not about FIDE vs USCF rules of insufficient material, it's more about what is considered a "legal move" or a "completed move" in FIDE.  Was White's Ndxc7+ "completed"?  If not, does White have many legal moves based on the position?  Or only 1 legal move because the Black pawn and White Knight were both "touched"?

I can easily see where the confusion is.

There is a major difference between a won position and a forced mate.  You can run out of time in a winning position with 30 second increment if it is complicated enough.

Anybody with half a brain that has gone as far to figure out that Ndxc7+ is the move to make here will clearly be able to make the following 2 moves in time if given 30 seconds per move.

Thrillerfan, you are making a simple situation complicated. It was stipulated that the move had been completed, but White didn't hit his clock in time and ran out of time. 

Ofcourse increments doesnt mean no more games decided by the clock it just means they happen less AND neither player can ever stop keeping score , which takes care of various other problems ... 

According to the FIDE handbook, when talking about the flag dropping: 

In this position, black can't checkmate white by any possible series of legal moves. Therefore, if white's flag falls after he plays Ndxc7+, then I'm pretty sure it's a draw.

Agreed, Reb. The bit about being forced to continue writing down the moves is an important point. I think many USCF players aren't quite aware of that.

But that's the thing, is the move completed?  Not "physically", but "legally"?

In USCF, if it's not checkmate, it doesn't matter if you made the move before the clock ran out.  If the clock is not stopped with time left on it, the move doesn't count and you lose.

For example, if you have nothing left but a Rook (and King of course), and his opponent plays Queen takes Rook, but his clock runs out before he hits the clock, either that's a loss for the player with the Queen (and pawn in this case), or the player on a board next to me years ago got cheated out of a draw.  He had a Queen and Pawn, White had just a Rook, Black proceeded to play Queen takes Rook, and the flag fell as he was moving his hand from his Queen (Rook had been picked up and the Queen's rear-end was on the square) to the clock.

The ruling was a win for White because Black's clock wasn't stopped with time left on it.  Had his flag fallen the following move, it would have been ruled a draw by insufficient mating material.

Apparently many USCF directors aren't aware of it either!

At the club we play at on Tuesday Nights, 1 rated game a week, the time control is Game in 75 minutes with a 15 second increment.

The director once tried to tell someone that he had to continue taking notation, and I had to point out to him afterwards that he was wrong in his ruling, and that the rule states that the player must continue to take down all moves in any game that features an increment of 30 seconds or more (I once played in a Game/90 with 60 second increment, so more than 30 does exist).

With 15 seconds increment, this is still no obligation if either player is below 5 minutes.  Of course, that part I find completely stupid, and agree with FIDE.  Only the player under 5 minutes should be allowed to stop taking notation.  If you have 23 minutes, and I have 4 1/2 minutes, you should still be obligated to take notation.

Yes , the increment must be 30 sec or greater to require the players to keep taking score and if the tourney is FIDE rated it has to be run by FIDE rules is my understanding so only the player under 5 min can stop keeping score ( with under 30 sec increment or none ) . 

Do you lose by default if your notation is incorrect? Has this ever happened in a top level tourney?