SuperPatzer77

I will join you.
But it is true. GM Shipov, who is commenting the event, spoke to Moiseenko afterwards. And there the explanation emerged, that <alexmagnus> cited.

I would be curious to know the particulars. Perhaps on his 39th turn, Navara initially picked up the wrong White h-pawn (the one on h4) when he obviously intended the capture <39. ... Bxh2+> (as was actually played ). Whatever the touch-move slip, it was gracious of Moiseenko not to enforce it, so the overall course of the game reflects well on the sportsmanship of both players.

http://whychess.org/en/node/1689

BTW, Navara's account, as set forth in a very awkward translation at page 29 of this thread: World Cup (2011) raises some question whether Moiseenko actually "pardoned" an infraction he could have made the basis for a claim (as per Shipov's account at WhyChess).

you are probably wondering, why I offered a draw. The reason is that, while my opponent was pressed for time, I accidentally touched two pieces at approximately the same time when executing a move (I moved my bishop and grazed my king). My opponent asked me to move my king, which would lead me to give up. I replied that I do not know which piece out of the two I touched first, but it was obvious in any case that I was not planning to move my king and that I was executing a bishop move. After making my move I did not manage to press the clock [in time] because of my opponent's protest, so I subsequently stopped it, but in such an unfortunate way that the arbiters had to re-start it. Then we kept playing, but I was already pretty nervous. Prior to my opponent's second time pressure I did not manage to get to the bathroom in time, so I could not focus on the game, which is why I played the queen versus rook ending so badly. (I admit it was not the only reason.) Finally, at the verge of winning, I offered a draw to my opponent, as I did not want the match to be decided by such a mad game or a protest without a body of evidence. Therefore I have to play a tiebreak tomorrow. I will have the white pieces in the first game. Please, do not be angry with me, but I seriously do not know what I should have done. My opponent is a polite person, but here this sort of disagreement simply took place and I do not even know who was formally right. I did not want people to say that I advanced unfairly. Thank you for your understanding.>

tamar: A curious episode. I take it that the incident occurred at move 35...Bd6, when the King and Bishop were adjacent.

But the video does not record it as far as I can see, as it picks up the game right at 35...Bd6 and through the time control. See around 16:14:00 http://video.ugrasport.com/view/698

Moiseenko raises his hand, but does not seem to say anything.

Navara had the chance to concede a draw many times during the Queen versus Rook ending, one golden opportunity was after 104 Rb7!

click for larger view

when 104...Qxb7 stalemate.

But Navara offered a draw only when he had demonstrated he could win with mate.

Navara did *not* need to be "pardoned" for accidentally touching his king earlier and so should have won the game with a clear conscience.

The main point is that 23…dxc5 is prevented, and so Black must capture on e5. But after either capture, eg. 23…fxe5, there follows 24.Nd7! The black queen and rook on b8 are both attacked, and 24…Qxc4 allows 25.N(either) x e5+, forking king and queen. Instead, Black must surrender the exchange.>

But the incident happend a few move earlier...

vonKrolock: After <35.♕e2>

click for larger view

chessbase.com <"This is the critical position. David Navara reached for the bishop but bumped the king with his hand. His opponent pointed this out, and that according to the touch-move rule he was bound to move the king. However, doing so would have allowed Rxe7, winning a piece. <<"I realised that my opponent had made a mistake and accidentally touched the piece, as it is not possible that a player of his strength could have blundered so badly. This is the reason I did not insist on his move with the king.">>>

Overall, it was a common time trouble
confusion, handled perfectly respectably by both players.

It would make for a bit of an interesting history lesson to hear about how the rule was abolished, & if the unwritten rule was also used in shatranj, chaturnaga or (possibly? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chatur... see ashtapada) related dice games (6 sides to a die could correspond to which type of piece to move by means of a roll - such a type of die with chess piece markings would be neat to collect).

-- Korchnoi

Karpova: David Navara describes what happened to chessbase.com:

After 35.Qe2

click for larger view

David Navara: <The critical moment arose on the 35th move. My opponent was in a time trouble and I wanted to play the move 35...Be7-d6, which I therefore executed. Unfortunately, while making this move, I incidentally touched my king with my thumb and it started to rock a bit. I do not know which piece I touched first, but I really had no intention to play with my king, and touched it only when executing my intended move. My opponent noticed the movement of the king and asked me to play with it. I replied that I had no idea which piece I had touch first, and that I definitely wanted to play with my bishop. Then the arbiter came over. He supported my opinion, but I am not sure how much he had seen, and therefore do not consider this especially relevant. Anyway, my opponent agreed to continue the game, and I am thankful to him for this.

Incidentally I had executed my move 35...Bd6 and my clock was still running during the controversy, therefore I stopped it with the middle button while discussing with my opponent and with the arbiter. When play resumed I tried to start it again, using the same button, but it refused to run, even though the remaining time stayed displayed. I admit that this might have been caused by my handling of the clock. I told the arbiters the time consumption at the moment and watched the other games while they were setting the clock.

After the game continued I achieved a decisive advantage, but I terribly misplayed the endgame K+Q vs K+R. At the end I was lucky to achieve a completely winning position, but I decided to offer a draw. By doing this, I did not concede that I had been at fault on move 35. I just admitted that I do not know which piece I touched first and what the correct result should be. I wanted the match to be decided on the board, not in the appeals committee or by such a crazy game.

I should also note that none of us acted with an ill will. My opponent had seen my king rocking and it was logical to ask me to play with it. This was just an unfortunate incident which can happen from time to time.>

Source: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail...

I'll sign that.

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.