Monday, 5 September 2011

When asking the arbiter doesn't help

I was going to do a big post about the Moiseenko Navara incident from the third round of the World Cup. For those not familiar with it, Navara made contact with two of his own pieces while playing a move, and Moiseenko claimed he had to move the King, which was a blunder. Navara instead moved the piece he had always intended to, but the issue played on his mind so much, that when he had a forced mate, he instead offered a draw. The post I'd intended would have ended with the suggestion that asking the arbiter for a ruling would have been the more sensible solution.
However, it turns out that Navara did ask the arbiter for a ruling, and the arbiter informed in he could play the move he intended. Based on the information that has come to light after the game (including video evidence) was the correct ruling (as Navara only bumped his king while picking up the bishop). So while it is clear that Navara did know the rules, whether Moiseenko did is not so clear. Immediately after the game some commentators were praising the good sportsmanship of both players, but for me this is either a case of Moiseenko being ignorant of the rules, or indeed engaging in 'sharp practice'.
What would have been good sportsmanship, given that arbiter made the correct ruling, was for Moiseenko to accept that his incorrect claim affected the outcome of the game (and match), and offer to resign the match. As it turns out Navara did win the playoff section 3-1, so at least the right result was arrived at.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

According to Chessbase: 'Alexander Moiseenko did not insist on the "touch-move" rule'--so it sounds like they don't know the rules either. Also strange is that Navara would play 40 moves of a QvR ending, reach a winning position, and only then offer a draw.