The Moiseenko-Navara Draw: Honorable, Or Not?
In the last post, I gave the details of the very strange Moiseenko-Navara draw as I understood them at the time; now, further details are available. (Have a look here [HT: Mark Crowther].) In brief, on move 35 Navara wanted to move his bishop from e7, but first touched his king on f7 in what seems to be universally accepted as an accident. Moiseenko noted at the time that Navara touched the king and had to move it, but then chose not to insist. Later, so that he wouldn't be viewed as someone who won in an unfair way, Navara offered a draw in a position that was by that moment trivially won. Had he won the game, he would have won the match on the spot and guaranteed himself at least another $7200.
It is claimed by some parties that this was an example of good sportsmanship, of honorable action, first by Moiseenko and then by Navara. I'm afraid I disagree. Article 4 of the FIDE Laws of Chess, "The act of moving the pieces", makes repeated reference to the player deliberately moving a piece. If it was really clear, as it seems to have been from the players' statements, that Navara accidentally brushed the king on the way to moving the bishop, then Moiseenko is no more being honorable than I would be if I saw someone I knew to be very intelligent adult type "you" as "yuo" and maintained that she really wasn't so stupid as to misspell a first-grade word. This is not an act of supererogatory magnanimity on my part or Moiseenko's, but a trivial display of basic decency. It's hardly even a positive act; it's more like avoiding a really negative behavior.
For different reasons, I don't think Navara acted properly either. By the rules of the game and by correct sporting norms, he deserved to win. Furthermore, if he has a second or seconds and they are receiving a percentage rather than a purely flat fee, they are thereby entitled to at least the cut they would have received had Navara won. (Of course, he might still qualify, but if he doesn't?) There is something morally attractive about Navara's putting competitiveness on such a low level, but I don't believe it should have been trumped in this case. This isn't like Azmaiparashvili's making a move and hitting the clock against Malakhov some years ago and then requesting (and receiving!) a take-back. Navara had nothing to be ashamed of or any reason to fear that anyone would think of less of him.
Just to be clear, I'm not claiming that either player acted dishonorably, though if Moiseenko pointed out that Navara "had to" move the king, knowing all the while that it was an accident, before regaining his sportsmanship and retracting the claim, then in that case it would have been a dishonorable initial act on his part. If that's the case, it would be an instance of good sportsmanship by him to resign the match without playing tomorrow. That scenario aside, I wouldn't claim that either player acted dishonorably, but all the same Moiseenko shouldn't have said anything if he believed it was an accident and Navara shouldn't have let his opponent off the hook.
But maybe I'm wrong. What do you think?
Nakamura's Hypocrisy?
So says Peter Zhdanov (HT: Brian Karen). The context was Hikaru Nakamura implicitly but obviously tweeting that Fabiano Caruana was cherry picking by playing in the Reyjkjavik Open, looking for easy rating points. So said Nakamura when Caruana passed him on the live rating list, although when in a subsequent open event Caruana fell back Nakamura didn't change his tune. Now, however, Nakamura himself has played in an open event and not just any open event, but a very weak one (by his exalted standards). Five rounds against players rated 1900+ to -2300+ netted him four rating points, extending his lead over Caruana and enabling him to pass Sergey Karjakin on the live list.
It's much ado about very little, but for me it makes me happy that a real sportsman like Viswanathan Anand holds the crown. A little smack talk among friends is one thing, but unless one's rivals are doing something unethical it's best, I think, to keep one's negative opinions to oneself.
As an aside, it's also wise, most of the time, as the talker runs the risk that one's opponents will be more motivated than before. Veselin Topalov tried it on Vladimir Kramnik, and it didn't work, and the normally classy Kramnik was taught a lesson in his match with Anand a couple of years later. I've experienced it at my own (considerably less exalted) level. Some years ago I had a match with an opponent who thought he would intimidate me with his bluster, but it didn't work. There were two results of this attempt: first, I decided I would never have anything to do with him again if I could help it. Life is too short to waste on people whose primary mode of interaction is belligerence. Second, I determined to do everything possible - ethically possible - to triumph, and I did.
I'm sure others have other opinions, but please, express them without bellicosity!