THE CAMPAIGN AGAINST CHESS GRANDMASTER KRAMNIK

It started in 2023, if not earlier. I have noticed the following features of that campaign: 

1. They do not quote Kramnik and recommend not reading his texts or watching his videos. 
2. They assert that Kramnik said A, while Kramnik, instead, said "Not A, but B." 
3. If Kramnik said C in the case of E, they assert that he also said C in the case of F. 
4. They intentionally confuse all relevant modalities and meanings of the terms. 
5. If Kramnik really did something wrong, it would almost never show up in such a discourse. It would not reveal itself. 
6. If Kramnik's ideas have some positive meaning in a particular context, they would be absolutely denied and ignored. 
7. The campaign clearly exemplifies the unpleasant truth that chess players are not as intelligent and moral as they are often perceived to be. Even several grandmasters and professors who play chess show up with complete nonsense.

The whole campaign is reduced to the banal McCarthyism and Russophobia - a form of racism. Arrogance, ignorance and stupid ethnocentrism. I am completely tired of the so-called "chess community".

I CLOSED MY CHESSDOTCOM ACCOUNT

Today, on 16 November 2025, I voluntarily and deliberately closed my chess.com account. 

That account was created in 2024, and my username was Mikromeister. 

Already in summer 2025, I cancelled my subscription and stopped playing on that platform. The reasons I cited in my blog were the following:

• The platform ChessDotCom was politicising chess, doing so aggressively and in a biased, selective, discriminative manner. 
• There were an awful number of cheaters, opponents using databases and chess engines during live, rapid games. According to the platform's own data, on some days, more than 50% of my opponents violated the rules of fair play and I got some rating points back. 
• The way the platform handled complaints, cheaters and corresponding ratings was far from being transparent and understandable.

During that period when I used the platform, I was unaware of the scandals concerning Kramnik, Naroditsky or Navara.

Today, I closed my account, sending to ChessDotCom the following explanation:

"Asking questions about fair play, based on statistical evidence, is not the same as making baseless accusations. ChessDotCom's demagoguery is intolerable."

On 24 December 2024, ChessDotCom announced that GM Kramnik's, the former world champion, blog has been closed and his account has been muted. The platform provided an explanation, which contained confusion concerning the meanings of relevant terms:

"Our team carefully investigated many dozens of players about which GM Kramnik raised suspicions. In the vast majority of cases, we found his accusations baseless. 

Unfortunately, GM Kramnik has continued to take his accusations public..."

Suspicions are not accusations. Kramnik's suspicions were not baseless - most of his questions were based on statistical evidence and anomalies discovered.

The issue is about possible cheating in online games.

Recently, again, ChessDotCom repeated its confusing demagoguery:

TarjeiJS 
"FIDE Confirms Ethics Investigation Into Kramnik Following Death Of Naroditsky"

ChessDotCom, 12 November 2025

That article was published on ChessDotCom's official News channel. Quotation:

"At the end of 2023, Chess.com muted Kramnik's account following repeated accusations against other players. He was later suspended from prize events and is now permanently banned, following what Chess.com called repeated, and egregious, violations of the company's Community Policy." 

ChessDotCom has completely dismissed, ignored or distorted Kramnik's own repeated explanations and arguments. For Kramnik's arguments, see, for example:

Kramnik, V. 

"Kramnik Demands to Examine Nakamura’s Games" 

Levitov Chess World, 27 November 2023 

Quotations:

"I'm not trying to I'm not saying that Hikaru was playing not fair because I don't have uh not the legacy actually and I'm not a mathematician and that's not me who has to judge..." (8:01)

"...those statistics are very very unusual, let's say extremely nonstandard, and since if we are really trying to fight against, you know, against cheating, if we really take it seriously, I believe that such results, such performances must be very seriously checked, maybe the, and maybe the result of the check will be, you know, like that or like this, but you cannot leave such outrageous, I mean performances, without further check, and that is the only reason why I started this..." (8:26)

To those who understand probability theory, confirmation theory and the basics of statistics, ChessDotCom's demagogical accusations and denials amount to the declaration that

2 + 2 = 5

This company is an Orwellian chess dystopia. 

KÜLAOTS KRAMNIKU JA NARODITSKI JUHTUMIST

Avastasin äsja hilinemisega, et Eesti üks juhtivaid male suurmeistreid Kaido Külaots on andnud intervjuu seoses suurmeister Daniel Naroditski (inglise keeles Naroditsky) ootamatu surmaga ja seejärel malemaailmas puhkenud süüdistustelainega suurmeister ja eksmaailmameister Vladimir Kramniku vastu:

Lõbu, Grete 

"Külaots male kiusamisskandaalist: keegi ei oska öelda, mis Kramniku peas toimub" 

ERR, 30. oktoober 2025

Selle intervjuu iseloomustamiseks ERR poolt esitatud tekst ei ühti väga hästi intervjuu endaga. Tekstis mainitakse mitu korda, et malemaailmas süüdistatakse Kramnikut Naroditskile pettesüüdistuste esitamises. Näiteks:

"Malemaailmas kahtlustatakse, et endise maailmameistri Vladimir Kramniku pettusesüüdistused võisid viia noore suurmeistri surmani."

Aga intervjuus endas pettesüüdistustest juttu ei ole. Tekstis mainitakse ka Kramnikule malemaailmas esitatud süüdistust kiusamises:

"Kramnik ise on kõiki kiusamissüüdistusi eitanud."

Aga intervjuus endas kiusamisest juttu ei ole.

Nii tekstis kui intervjuus räägitakse läbisegi kord Kramniku poolt Naroditskile ja mitmetele teistele maletajatele esitatud süüdistustest, kord aga kahtlustustest. Intervjueeritav Külaots räägib kohati selgelt, et Kramnik on Naroditskit pettuses süüdistanud. 

Kramniku vastases kampaanias on levinud ka süüdistus, et Kramnik olevat oma süüdistused esitanud ilma igasuguste tõenditeta, põhjendamatult. Kramninu süüdistused olevat alusetud. See haakub väitega, et Kramnik on esitanud pettesüüdistusi, sest põhjendatud süüdistus poleks ju pettesüüdistus. 

Külaotsal siiski jätkub mehisust tunnistada, et Kramnikul on mingeid tõendeid lauale panna. 

Selles kõiges aga siiski puudub loogika. Sest Kramniku enda sõnul on ta statistilistele andmetele toetudes esitanud põhjendatud kahtlustusi. Kahtlustuse esitamiseks ei olegi ju väga tugevaid tõendeid vaja, piisab sobivatest "mingitest tõenditest". Näiteks selleks, et kedagi kahtlustada mõrva sooritamises, piisab "mingist tõendist", et teda nähti kuriteopaigal. Ent mõrvasüüdistuse esitamiseks ja veelgi enam selle tõestamiseks on vaja palju rohkem ja rangemaid tõendeid.

Niisiis jätavad Külaotsa ütlused sellise mulje, et Kramnik on mingite nappide tõendite alusel esitanud ränki süüdistusi.

Ent Kramnik ise kordab sadu kordi, et oma statistilistele andmetele tuginedes on ta esitanud ainult küsimusi, mida oleks tulnud põhjalikult kontrollida näiteks maleorganisatsioon FIDE poolt või maleplatvorm ChessDotCom poolt.

Teadaolevalt on Kramnik vähemalt ühel juhtumil esitanud ka süüdistusi, ent tuginedes otsesematele tõenditele nagu näiteks arvutiekraanil näha olnud töötav malemasin malepartii ajal. Sellel konkreetsel juhtumil Kramnik võib-olla siiski eksis, sest maleplatvorm ChessDotCom väidab, et selle konkreetse esinemise ajal oli Naroditskil lubatud malemasinat kasutada.

Külaotsa intervjuu põhjal jääb aga tugev mulje, et tal pole üldse õrna aimugi, mida Kramnik ise tegelikult räägib ja kirjutab.

Täiesti arusaamatud ja pehmelt väljendudes rumalad on Külaotsa märkused, et Kramnikul pole peas kõik korras, samuti tema märkused Kramniku motiivide kohta.

Ka Garri Kasparov on kirjutanud imelikke tekste ja mitte vähe. Kasparov kaotas kunagi matši malearvutile Deep Blue ja hiljem süüdistas aastaid, et seda arvutit olevat salaja inimene abistanud. Miks Külaots ei ütle ka Kasparovi kohta, er Kasparov on peast põrunud?

Külaots peab Kramnikut peast põrunuks, sest Kramnik on esitanud mõnedele tippmaletajatele kahtlustusi pettuses. Ent näiteks tippmaletaja Magnus Carlsen esitas pettuse süüdistuse tippmaletaja Hans Niemannile, ilma tõenditeta. Miks Külaots ei ütle, et ka Carlsen on peast põrunud?

Külaots kordab sõna-sõnalt mõnede tippmaletajate poolt esitatud argumenti, et Kramnik on esitanud süüdistusi mitmetele tippmaletajatele. See on idiootlik argument. Kramnik kontrollis statistilisi meetodeid kasutades mõningaid internetimale tippturniire. Statistiliste arvutuste põhjal tulid välja mõned nimed, kelle malekäikudes ja malelistes tulemustes esines statistilisi anomaaliaid. Kas see, et Kramnik usaldab matemaatikat, näitabki Külaotsa arvates, et Kramnikul pole kupli all kõik korras?

Millele põhineb Külaotsa väide, et Naroditski pole mitte kunagi petnud? Külaotsa väitest, et Naroditskil on laitmatu reputatsioon, ei järeldu, et ta pole kunagi petnud.

Ja nii edasi, parem on rumalate argumentide loetlemisega enam mitte jätkata.

ERR on riiklik uudisteagentuur. ERR käesolev artikkel jätab seetõttu mulje, et Kramniku vastane kampaania on lääneriikide poolt riiklikul tasemel organiseeritud.

Lõpetuseks tähelepanek, et Kramnik on lubanud kohtusse kaevata kõik need isikud ja organisatsioonid, kes on teda Naroditski ootamatu surma põhjustamises süüdistanud ja teda avalikult süüdlaseks või koguni mõrtsukaks on nimetanud. Mitmete riikide seadusandluse järgi on teise inimese surmas põhjendamatult avalik süüdistamine kriminaalkuritegu.

Võimalik, et male suurmeister Külaots peab nüüd lootma, et Kramniku advkaadid ei oska eesti keelt.

Intervjuus vaata intervjueerija küsimust ja Külaotsa vastust ajavahemikul 04:15 kuni 04:43. Intervjueerija küsib, kas see, et Kramnik teda pettuses süüdistas, võis Naroditskis tekitada musta masendust, muret oma reputatsiooni pärast, tunnet, et "su elu on läbi" jne. Ja Külaots vastab:

"Seda võib Naroditski kurva näite põhjal täpselt öeldagi."

See intervjuu jätab küll sellise mulje, et Külaots süüdistas Kramnikut Naroditski surma põhjustamises. Kusjuures ta esitas selle süüdistuse hetkel, kui politsei alles alustas selle surmajuhtumi uurimist "võimaliku enesetapu või üledoosina". Ka käesolevaks hetkeks pole USA politsei Naroditski surma otsest põhjust veel teatanud. 

Selle nägemine, kuivõrd võikalt rumalad on tegelikult isegi malesuurmeistrid ja tippmaletajad, tõukab mind isiklikult küll malemängust või vähemalt malemängijaist eemale.

See ei ole nali. Kramniku hiljutises pikas intervjuus 

"Владимир Крамник: об угрозах жизни, Народицком, шахматной мафии"

teatab Kramnik (ajavahemikus 32:57 kuni 34:00), et ta võib need, kes teda Naroditski surmas süüdistavad, kriminaalsüüdistusega kohtusse kaevata.

Kramnik:

"Вообще-то по закону Швейцарии и не только Швейцарии, обвинять человека в доведении до смерти - это уголовное преступление."

Tõlge:

"Tegelikult Šveitsi ja mitte ainult Šveitsi seaduste järgi on inimese süüdistamine surma põhjustamises kriminaalkuritegu."

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!