The subtleties of touch move rule

I played a blitz game with my buddy

What is the ruling in this?He moves his queen to Qb6 then slides it down to Qc5 ,his hand not dropping the piece.we are arguing about this.My verdict is he should drop it to Qb6.His argument was he could still slide it to Qc5 coz he still didnt drop it to the square of b6.I need help.Show me the official fide rules on this.

If you touch a piece you have to move it, no matter to what square. As long as he didn't drop it, he can put the queen on any legal square he wants. So your opponent was right.

he didnt actually lift it ,he slided it to qb6 left it there for a moment then he slided it  to Qc5.So he was still right?oh man

Your friend is allowed to place it on c5 because his hand still maintains contact with the piece. 

I have another question.we played another blitz game.

I had more time than him he has about 30 seconds.he claims it to be a draw.I wanted to play on.What's the verdict?

Depends who's move it is.

You want to play on, you play on.

and this.

It's my turn.What if it is his turn?Can he claim a draw in this drawish position ,i admit.

If he has a material or positional advantage and has 2 minutes or less left in his clock, he is allowed to claim a draw. 

This applies for classical time control. I don't know about blitz. 

Can you show me the official Fide ruling in this if it's not a hassle

I would say black has ok chances. doesn't Kg5 win the rook?

I am far from an expert, but it seems that no matter where the rook goes it is lost to Kg5. I've probably missed something, knowing me.

That actually applies in classical time controls? What the... 

This is not a position that qualifies for the insufficient losing chances rule. He can't claim a draw here--he can offer one, but not just claim it, regardless of which color he's playing or whose move it is.

For the insufficient losing chances rule, if a class-c player would beat a master from the board position 9 times out of 10, you can claim a draw in a classical time control -if- there is no time delay or increment.

I'm reasonably sure it doesn't apply at all in blitz.

I'm not actually sure if that's part of FIDE laws of chess, or just USCF, btw.

That makes no sense to me. What happened to the whole 'the clock is a part of the game' mentality? Pretty sure the KNSB doesn't use that rule :p

From wiki, here's FIDE's version:

A player with less than two minutes remaining can claim a draw and summon the arbiter, if he believes that the opponent is no longer trying to win the game by normal means, or that the position is such that it is impossible for the opponent to try and win by normal means. The opponent may accept the claimant's draw request, which ends the game by agreement.^[5] If the opponent does not agree to the draw, the arbiter may accept the claim (which ends the game immediately as a draw), reject the claim (after which the game continues, with the opponent receiving two additional minutes), or postpone the decision. In this case the opponent may be given two minutes extra, and the game continues until the arbiter makes a call or the claimant's flag falls after which the arbiter makes a decision. Decisions made by the arbiter under 10.2 are final.

The rules allowing an arbiter to declare a game drawn do not apply to blitz chess.

wow otb is really different there are alot of nuances.

And the USCF version:

A player with less than two minutes remaining without time delay can petition the tournament director for a draw on the grounds that the opponent has no reasonable chance of winning the position, had both players had ample time. In USCF's guidelines, this would mean an average tournament player (class C) having a less than a 10% probability of losing the position against a master, with both players having sufficient time. The tournament director may accept the claim (ending the game as drawn), reject the claim and penalize the claimant with one minute less time, or postpone the decision. If the tournament director postpones the decision, there is the option of substituting a non-delay clock with a delay clock with the claimant having his remaining time halved. Since the insufficient losing chances rules calls upon discretion from the tournament director, clocks with the time delay feature are preferred over clocks without them.^[7]

I know of a real life example of this, at a high level. Copying and pasting a post I made on a different thread a while back:

• Here's one from an international match - Wales vs Tajikistan, Olympiad 2006. IM Leighton Williams playing GM Farrukh Amonatov.

  http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1411911

  Leighton's account of what happened is as follows: On move 33, black, realising his position was lost, tried a cheap trick which didn't come off. Both players were in time trouble. Black picked up his queen and placed it on h1, and called check, without letting go of the piece. As white looked away to write the move down, black quickly shifted the queen to g1, where it is en prise from the bishop. Leighton realised what was going on and simply took the queen, winning the game. Of course, had he not noticed and blocked the check with the rook, the bishop would've been gobbled up.