KRAMNIK SUES FIDE FOR DEFAMATION

A quotation from the article “Vladimir Kramnik Sues FIDE for Defamation after Daniel Naroditsky Controversy” (India Today, 1 January 2026):

"Czech Grandmaster David Navara has also claimed to have felt distressed and suicidal due to Kramnik's online cheating charge against him."

"Kramnik has consistently defended his conduct, maintaining that his statements are substantiated."

- Implicitly, it is said that Kramnik made a statement that Navara was cheating, and that Kramnik asserts that this statement is substantiated.

And that is a lie and a form of defamation.

I have read Kramnik's statements and watched his videos.

Kramnik has NOT accused Navara of cheating.

From the article “Kramnik Takes FIDE to Swiss Civil Court - Bypassing Sport's Usual Arbitration System” (Worldchess News, 30 December 2025), which presumably represents the position of FIDE:

"[Kramnik] ... now faces accusations that his own allegations against others crossed ethical and legal lines."

- The article implies that Kramnik has made several accusations and only accusations.

Instead, most of Kramnik's "accusations" are carefully formulated suspicions or questions.

In such cases, he clearly states that he does not accuse but merely demands investigations of statistically abnormal playing results and demands explanations.

Thus, when writing about the current defamation lawsuit, the slandering continues and even amplifies.

Typically, Kramnik's precise and clear formulations are almost never quoted.

The written text of Kramnik's critics simply does not correspond to what Kramnik actually said.

And I am talking about it not because of Kramnik.

I am talking about it because of the principle that important statements must be reported correctly. 

FIDE FAULTY VOTING SYSTEM

I am afraid that FIDE and ICCF have a mistaken voting system. Their press releases often do not specify how many deputies participated in the vote. 

Their demagoguery is to say "majority" instead of "majority of those who participated". 

Or they declare that "P percentage voted for the decision" instead of "P percentage of those who participated voted for the decision". 

It also leads to contradictions too easily. 

Already, when FIDE sanctioned Russia in 2022, public propaganda gave the impression that the majority of FIDE member states demanded the sanctions. I am afraid that, instead, it was the majority of those who voted. In any case, it seems that the percentage of those countries that supported the sanctions was much lower than the impression made by press releases. 

Suppose that Y is the number of those who vote "Yes", N is the number of those who vote "No", and A is the number of those who are neutral, abstain or are missing. We assume that A > 0, as is usually the case. Then, obviously, 

Y/(Y + N) > Y/(Y + N + A) 

That is the basics of probability calculus and the calculus of percentages. 

FIDE and ICCF public reports of their voting results are not transparent, making political demagoguery too easy. 

I suggest that reports and relevant news include: 

1. The number of FIDE member states. 
2. The minimum number of YES-votes required to accept a decision (the quota). 
3. The number of those who were ABSENT. 
4. The numbers of YES, NO, and NEUTRAL. 

My present essay is motivated by the fact that, recently, FIDE voted on whether to annul the sanctions imposed on Russia. According to FIDE's own press releases, it managed to adapt at once to parallel decisions that conflicted with each other. See, for example: 

"Chess World Left In Limbo As FIDE's Russia Vote Ends In Chaos And Confusion",

Worldchess, 14 December 2025 

Quotations: 

"When it came to the vote, Russia's controversial motion passed by 61 in favour, to 51 against." 

"A second motion proposed by the FIDE Council also passed by 69 votes to 40." 

Note that there are around 200 member federations of FIDE, and: 

61 + 51 = 112 < 200 

69 + 40 = 109 < 200 

Note also that 200/2 = 100, and: 

61 < 100 

69 < 100 

That is, no decision was taken with an absolute majority. 

Now, let us take a look at FIDE's official statement:

"FIDE General Assembly decisions regarding Russia and Belarus", 
Fide News, 14 December 2025

Quotation: 

"In a procedural outcome, reflecting the diversity of views within the chess community, the General Assembly voted to adopt both the resolution proposed by the Chess Federation of Russia (61 votes in favour, 51 against, 14 abstentions and 15 delegates not voting) and the resolution proposed by the FIDE Council (69 votes in favour, 40 against, 15 abstentions and 17 delegates not voting)." 

However, the total number of member states is still missing, as 

61 + 51 + 14 + 15 = 141 < 200 

69 + 40 + 15 + 17 = 141 < 200 

I criticised the demagoguery and illogicality of FIDE's voting and its interpretations already on 24 September 2024. 

Terminology

FIDE - International Chess Federation

ICCF - International Correspondence Chess Federation 

MY ANSWER TO THE "QUESTION" CONCERNING KRAMNIK, NARODITSKY, AND FIDE

On the Chess Stack Exchange, a strange question was asked:

"Kramnik referral to FIDE Ethics Commission regarding Naroditsky"

I was technically unable to comment on it, therefore, I published my comment to that "question" as an "answer". As a result, my reply might be converted to a comment, perhaps with some technical distortions.

Therefore, I shall publish my comment here as a copy (see below). 

The page as it stands right now has also been saved on the Wayback Machine. 

The Question is Badly Formulated

The question is badly formulated, and I have flagged it.

All questions have some presuppositions. In the present case, the number of presuppositions has not been minimised, and the assumptions made have not been proven or are wrong.

Therefore, the post pretends to be a question but reads more like a poorly justified accusation.

The "question" starts with the following accusation:

"After Naroditsky's sudden death at age 29 following repeated allegations of online cheating by Kramnik..."

No reference is given to support that accusation. Moreover, we can read the recent article from Reuters:

"Chess - Kramnik files complaint over online threats after Naroditsky's death", Reuters, 26 October 2025.

It is partly behind the paywall, but it has been summed up in the following article:

"Former world chess champion Kramnik files complaint over online threats after Naroditsky's death", Asiaone, 27 October 2025

The relevant quotations are the following:

"Kramnik, who raised questions about possible cheating by Naroditsky and other players last year..."

"Naroditsky's name appeared on a list published by Kramnik last year of players showing unusually low blunder rates in the final seconds of online games.

Kramnik has denied accusing Naroditsky personally of cheating, saying his remarks were 'reasoned questions' based on statistical analysis."

As a presupposition of the question, also FIDE President Arkady Dvorkovich's statement on the FIDE website has been quoted.

That statement, however, associates GM Valdimir Kramnik with GM Daniel Naroditsky's death. At the moment, when that FIDE statement was published, the US police had not published a statement about the direct cause of Naroditsky's death. Only a few days later, the police announced that Naroditsky's death was being investigated as "a possible suicide or overdose".

Therefore, my answer to the "question" is that FIDE should first investigate whether its accusations are true and proven.

I also suggest that Chess Stack Exchange should not publish such "questions" which are actually public accusations of highly controversial issues.

Indeed, my comment was effectively deleted

It has been drastically shortened during the process of "converting" it from "answer" to "comment".

Notably, the "question" was asked by the user Brian Towers, and my comment was in effect deleted also by the user Brian Towers. 

According to Chess Stack Exchange, Brian Towers is a "moderator". I have flagged the propagandistic "question" but the system has not responded. Therefore, the weird "question" asked, which amounts to a part of the current larger smearing campaign, looks as if the official position of the Chess Stack Exchange. 

I will never forgive to that person who recommended me to try using Stack Exchange!