Great to see. One GM accidentally touched his king, and the other GM refused to enforce it and take a win that way. In return, the GM who touched the king had a won game and instead offered a draw.
In this increasingly selfish world, these acts really stand out as high class. These guys deserve some kind of recognition.
If you accidentally touch your king or any piece you are not required to move it. “Touch-move” only applies when you touch a piece “with the intention to move it.”
Maybe it wasn’t so accidental.
I think this has to be the point.
Rob Jones
What if the FIDE arbiter had intervened, and forced the player to move his king, against the wishes of both players?
It’s nightmare possibilities like this that cause me to question the FIDE approach to arbitership, and to prefer the USCF “the TD should not intervene” philosophy.
Bill Smythe
The official website has a lengthy writeup on it “Moiseenko and Navara Reminded the World About the Fair Play”, with clarifications from both grandmasters:
Next you’ll be saying that only the players can call the flag down.
The question was whether the touch was accidental. From reading the players’ comments on the FIDE website, my impression is that, had Moiseenko asked for a ruling, the arbiter would have made Navara move his king.
This sort of thing happens in golf all the time - and there, players are expected to call their own penalties (though in pro tournaments, there’s usually a rules official with every group). Golf has many stories of small, clearly unintentional and largely inconsequential rules violations that have cost players dearly. Major-championship examples include Bobby Jones at the US Open, Roberto De Vicenzo at the Masters and Ian Woosnam at the Open Championship. De Vicenzo’s story was especially brutal.
It would have been unfortunate, but Moiseenko wouldn’t deserve scorn for insisting that the rules be followed.
Having said all the above, my feeling is that most arbiters probably wouldn’t have made Navara move his king unless Moiseenko asked for a ruling.
From the video, it is absolutely clear that if Navara touched the king at all, it was completely accidental. He appears to make his move (35…Bd6) in one confident smooth motion.
First, there is no “if”. Both players’ post-match comments make it clear that the king was touched first.
Second, Moiseenko says he told Navara at that moment, “The King moves.” And Navara says he had a concern about sportsmanship after Moiseenko allowed him to play his intended 35th - hence, the draw offer in the won position later. That’s enough to make me think that intent would have been an open question, had Moiseenko chosen to make it an issue. Fortunately for everyone (especially the arbiter!), Moiseenko chose differently.
Boyd - I don’t understand your “impression”, and I note that you are one of the top TDs in the country, so I would like to understand you more clearly.
You know what the rules say, and you know that rules and facts are the only things you can rely upon to make decisions.
As for the rules, it is clear that what Drantos writes above is the rule.
As for the facts, it is clear that the players didn’t consider the piece touched with the intention of moving it. Although Moiseenko may have initially indicated that Navara should move his king, it is clear that either he did not stand by this, or that an arbiter did not support that.
It is not unusual for the arbiter’s role to be omitted in reports, and even to go unnoticed, for it may have been performed in a low key manner, if the arbiter had a role at all. As an International Arbiter myself, I would consider that the players having any discussion at all would be a reason for me to help make sure things stayed or were put back on track, and clearly, the game did continue. And as a chess master, it probably would have been as clear to me as it apparently was to the players that no intent had existed to move the king.
Thus, I don’t understand the basis of your remark. As an NTD, please explain or amend your remark.
Fair enough, I will rephrase. From the video, it is absolutely clear that Navara’s contact with the king was completely accidental. He appears to make his move (35…Bd6) in one confident smooth motion.
My personal theory, since we all have one: Navara brushed the king on the way to making the bishop move, and became convinced, when Moiseenko objected, that his infraction was worse than it had been. We know that he is kind of a sensitive soul and in fact has at least twice before offered draws from winning positions, so it is not difficult for me to believe that he stewed over Moiseenko’s reaction and convinced himself in retrospect that he really had done something wrong.
If I hadn’t seen the video I might believe that there were something to the objection.
Your theory is quite reasonable. And for the record, I doubt Navara intended to touch his king.
What makes me pause is Moiseenko’s initial objection. As a player, I have had numerous run-ins with incidental/accidental piece contact by my opponents, including two games with four-figure prizes on the line. I have never, though, even so much as looked askance at my opponent when those situations happened.
As a director, I have seen a lot more of these situations. My experience has been that (1) players very rarely even point out truly incidental contact, and (2) when players do point out potential touch-move issues, they usually believe that something bad happened.
Your point about Navara’s personality is a good one. I will just say that Moiseenko, AFAIK, is a pretty easygoing fellow, and has never been involved in any Matulovic-like chicanery. So for a player like that to obobject at all to a truly innocuous situation, seems unlikely.
As I said earlier, fortunately for all involved, Moiseenko chose not to make it an issue.
Both players acted admirably.
Thesis: if one picks up a piece as if one intended to move it, intentionality doesn’t matter.
Here are two Fingerfehlers from my teenage years.
I had a a king on e7 and a queen on d7, and intended to play something like …Kf8, but accidentally picked up the queen. I moved the queen (not much effect on the game’s outcome).
In a pawn ending, I intended to play 1…Ka3-a4 followed by 2…a6-a5, which would have won easily. I picked up the a-pawn in error on move 1, and had to resign after 2.b4xa5 and promotes. (But when Azmaiparashvili made a similar “transposition” error, he famously asked for and was granted a dispensation by Malakhov.)
OTOH, I’ve put a knight on d5, then (without releasing the piece) thought better of it, and put the piece on b5 instead. This is legal, but for a second or two, I certainly intended to move the piece to d5. I am probably not alone in this 
A literal reading of the rules would allow one to treat a Fingerfehler as if it were a mouse slip à la Matulović.