Well, chalk up 3 votes so far for repealing 14E altogether, so that only 14D would (might) save you.
Was this G/5 d/0 or G/3 inc/2? This example is a good reason to prefer the latter.
Bill Smythe
Was it Nakamura or GM Josh Friedel? I think it was last year.
Alex Relyea
I don’t know, and to be honest, I can’t find a reference to it. (That’s why I wrap it in the weasel words “I believe …”) I just remember reading about “American grandmaster Hikaru Nakamura”, “K+R vs. K+N”, “lost on time”, and “surprised because would have been drawn under USCF rules”, and filing that away in my mind’s attic as an interesting tidbit.
If anyone reading this can provide more definitive information, I would be tremendously grateful. I’m a little concerned that when I try to do a Google search for this, I’m coming up with references and citations of my web page of USCF vs. FIDE rules differences. 
Hm, it might be, but I did include that incident in my “USCF vs. FIDE differences” page, which is older than one year.
This is bugging me now …
Someone’s quotes are off. I did not write that.
Moderators: Since Alex has corrected the problem, this post (and the immediately preceding post by Mulfish) should probably be deleted. (I can’t delete it because it’s too old or there have been too many responses.) Thank you! 
Bill Smythe
It was Friedel… uschess.org/content/view/8079/407/
Thank you for this reference and for correcting my faulty memory! It was like an itch that was impossible to scratch … 
The whole point of 14E is to prevent a player from claiming a win on time if the player doesn’t have sufficient material to mate. If, e.g., player A has a King and a Queen, player B has nothing but a King, and player A’s flag falls, player B should get a draw rather than a win because there’s no way B could have won if there were no clock. Another way of looking at it is: 14E is making the situation equivalent to what would happen if there were no clock and A lacked the playing ability to checkmate in 50 moves. But if 14E were repealed, it would not be a draw because K+Q versus K is not a 14D situation.
I think the problem could be solved if 14E were reworded to say:
“When a player exceeds the time limit, his opponent can only claim a draw (rather than a win) if one of the following conditions exists (See also 15H, Reporting of results):”
Bob
But player B already gets the draw in that example anyway, under 14D4. 14E is not necessary in this case.
In other words, you are incorrect when you say that K+Q vs K (with white’s flag falling) is not a 14D situation. Read 14D4.
The real point of 14E is to handle marginal cases that don’t quite fit into 14D. For example, suppose player A has a whole army of pieces and player B has only K+N. 14D wouldn’t apply here, because there would probably be a sequence of legal moves leading to the K+N checkmating. (Some kind of smothered mate or helpmate or something.)
It is legitimately debatable whether 14E should exist at all. There is no FIDE rule parallel to USCF 14E. Those who wrote USCF 14E apparently felt it would be silly to allow, for example, K+N to defeat an entire army in a situation where that result, over the board, would be highly unlikely.
Bill Smythe
If, in your example, the weaker side has a pawn left, the probability of the win on the board for that side is still insignificant. However, it changes the result of the game (according to USCF rules) if the stronger side’s flag falls.
Does it make intrinsic chess sense, that the side with overwhelming material advantage and time about to expire has to go after opponent’s remaining pawns rather than pieces to salvage half a point? Well, maybe it does in terms of pawns being less mobile and thus being easier to capture.
The FIDE take on the rules (no 14E) has its own inelegance problems, since, for example, when one has Rook vs. Knight, the way to guarantee at least half a point is to give up the Rook.
I say the best solution is to have TD/arbiter evaluate each time forfeit claim separately based on the position on the board. Yes, I jest.
With all due respect (and that is a great amount), I’m not convinced this is correct. Or, perhaps more appropriately, I’m not convinced this should be correct; if it is, I think it is accidental and caused by poor wording of 14D4.
This is rule 14D (emphasis mine):
(Gack, I wish we would stop ending paragraphs with colons.)
Now, based on the words I’ve emphasized, I think the wording of 14D4 is faulty. Using terminology you and I have hashed out elsewhere, 14D (and 14D1 through 14D3) is concerned with positions that are “unwinnable for either player” (“dead positions”). I strongly believe that what 14D4 is trying to say (and fails to say) is:
If this is what 14D4 really is trying to say, then K+Q vs. K clearly would not fall under those cases represented by a properly worded 14D4. I certainly agree that the current wording of 14D4 covers K+Q vs. K for the superior side. But K+Q vs. K is not covered by the wording of 14D, as it is most certainly not a dead position.
I had an ADM on this year’s agenda to replace the wording of 14D4 with the above. Regrettably, I commingled that change with an attempt to add a rule 14E4 which would cover the case of a player exceeding the time limit but the opponent not being able to checkmate the player by any sequence of legal moves. Given the chaos that had broken out in the rules committee workshop, I chose to withdraw the ADM and to try again next year.
Considering the contradiction between the first sentence of 14D and the main body of 14D4 –
– it is possible to argue this one (the intent of 14D4) either way. (Emphasis mine in both cases.)
Historically, I’m guessing it happened something along the following lines as the 4th edition was being written: 14D and its examples (14D1, 14D2, 14D3) were written first. Then, somebody decided that, in the case of a position that is “dead for one player” or “unwinnable by one player” or “win-excluded for one player” (choose your terminology), the game should be declared drawn when the superior side’s time expired. And they also decided to make this concept part of 14D. Thus 14D4 was born, with nobody noticing (or caring much about) the resulting language conflict.
In any case, in my opinion (and I’m not sure whether you agree), the intent of 14D (including 14D4) ought to be:
- that if a position is “dead for both players” or “unwinnable by either player” or “win-excluded for both players” (again, choose your terminology), then the game is an immediate draw, regardless whether either player’s time has expired, AND
- that if a position is “dead for a player” or “unwinnable by a player” or “win-excluded for a player”, then the player cannot win the game, even if the opponent’s time expires.
I would hate it if an obvious case like K+Q vs K, with the superior side’s time expiring, had to be decided by a murky rule like 14E. Let 14E be reserved for the truly murky cases, like K+R vs K+N where the rook’s time expires, or K+N vs K+P where the pawn’s time expires and there are plausible wins for the knight, etc.
14D should be written to cover the case of K+Q vs K with the queen’s time expiring.
Bill Smythe