Breaking: Accusations against Kramnik

by ChessBase
10/23/2025 – Last Sunday, the family of 29-year-old American grandmaster Daniel Naroditsky announced his passing. No cause of death was given. Now, a major controversy has broken out: former world champion Vladimir Kramnik is being accused of harassing Naroditsky with suspicion of cheating. It is far too early to come to any conclusion in this matter, but the story has been splashed over international straight newspapers and channels.
Your personal chess trainer. Your toughest opponent. Your strongest ally.
FRITZ 20 is more than just a chess engine – it is a training revolution for ambitious players and professionals. Whether you are taking your first steps into the world of serious chess training, or already playing at tournament level, FRITZ 20 will help you train more efficiently, intelligently and individually than ever before. 

As we reported on Monday, the family of 29-year-old Daniel ("Danya") Naroditsky announced his passing. He was found unconscious on a couch in his home by friends on October 19. As of now, no official cause of death has been released by family, authorities, or the medical examiner. There are no reports of foul play, and the family has asked for privacy during this time.

Some speculation in media and online discussions has linked his death to stress, depression, and emotional struggles possibly exacerbated by public accusations and harassment, but there has been no confirmation from authorities or the family regarding any particular cause. Official statements refer only to his death as "unexpected".

Over the past year, Vladimir Kramnik publicly expressed suspicions in social media and other public forums that Daniel Naroditsky might be cheating in online chess games – without providing substantial evidence to back his claims. These accusations led to a significant and widely noted feud between the two, resulting in immense public scrutiny and distress for Naroditsky, who refuted all claims and revealed the emotional burden it caused him during his last Twitch stream.

Kramnik called for investigations into Naroditsky’s online results and implied that certain patterns in his play were “unnatural” or “computer-like,” which he used as the primary basis for his suspicions. Despite these public remarks, no specific games or technical analyses from Kramnik were cited as direct evidence, and the claims were widely criticized by prominent members of the chess community as unsubstantiated and harmful.

Notably, Kramnik persisted in these claims across several platforms and even referenced the controversy after Naroditsky’s death by sharing cryptic messages and insisting he was not responsible, while still questioning Naroditsky’s integrity. The lack of evidence and the continued nature of the accusations led to widespread backlash and an official investigation by FIDE into whether Kramnik’s actions constituted harassment or bullying.

After Naroditsky’s death, Kramnik posted: “Too high price paid, but if I was the only person shouting about obvious long-term problems of Danya becoming alarming, requiring urgent measures from people around, while 'friends' only cared about hiding it and erase evidence, it’s rotten to the core,” again alluding to cheating and substance abuse.

We leave it at that, there are sure to be extensive repercussions, and the stories will fill the news, chess or straight.

Here's Magnus Carlsen's take on the matter:

Hikaru Nakamura responded to Daniel Naroditsky's death with strong emotion and outspoken criticism of Vladimir Kramnik. He explicitly condemned Kramnik’s actions, referring to him as “a disgrace to chess.” After Naroditsky’s death, Nakamura said: “Kramnik can go f*** himself… Kramnik can go rot in hell”. He was among the most outspoken advocates calling for accountability, urging FIDE to take action against Kramnik.

And this is what FIDE President Arkady Dvorkovich posted on X: 

Final broadcast

The following, I believe, is Daniel's last broadcast, which he uploaded on his Twitch channel two days before his passing. His demeanour is quite cheerful and optimistic. He had not been on the channel for a while, and start with the words:

"Let's get the show on the road, welcome everybody to another speedrun episode. You thought I was gone forever, but little do you know I'm back, better than ever. I know that the episodes have been few and far between, I've been sort of taking kind of a creative break, deciding future avenues of content. I won't delve into it right now, because I know everybody's excited for some chess games..."

...and he goes on to annotate some rapid games. Take a look:

Here's Danya Naroditsky responding to Kramnik's cheating accusations a year ago:

Here's a final interview, conducted by Russian-Israeli WGM Dina Bellanka and Swedish-Spanish WFM Anna Cramling, both Twitch streamer and YouTubers:

<< US Championships: Caruana sole leader, Niemann beats Liang
Euro Club Cup: Alkaloid and SuperChess keep on winning >>
Reports about chess: tournaments, championships, portraits, interviews, World Championships, product launches and more.
Discussion and Feedback Submit your feedback to the editors

See also

He wins and wins and wins: Keymer now number four in the world

10/23/2025 – Vincent Keymer raised his live Elo rating to 2771.7 with his third victory in three games at the European Club Cup in Rhodes. He is currently fourth in the world rankings, just ahead of Praggnanandhaa and Arjun Erigaisi, who he will play against in the fifth round of the European Club Cup. | Photo: Gerd Densing
More...
 9

See also

Euro Club Cup: Alkaloid, SuperChess and Novy Bor still perfect

10/23/2025 – After four rounds of the European Club Cup in Batumi, Alkaloid (pictured, right), Novy Bor and SuperChess share the lead in the open section with perfect 8/8 match points. Limhamns from Sweden have emerged as the surprise contenders after defeating MTK Budapest. In the women's event, Cercle d'Echecs Monte Carlo are the sole leaders with a flawless 8/8 record, followed by Tajfun SK Ljubljana, Sirmium Sremska Mitrovica and Crvena Zvezda two match points behind. | Photo: Patricia Claros
More...
 2

Video

60m English The Elephant Gambit

The Elephant Gambit (1.e4.e5 2.Nf3 d5!?) has never really been given the attention it deserves. It is a very useful surprise weapon. Let us list the advantages of playing this particular opening: 1) Shock value 2) It is very aggressive. Black can take over the initiative early. 3) Many tricky lines 4) Unorthodox. Black is basically taking the game to the opponent as early as move two. Not many openings do that! It's a perfect opening for young players and club players to adopt. Let Andrew Martin select a repertoire for you on this 60 mins, which, if used with discretion, will rack up the points. I am sure that you will enjoy this unusual tour of the Elephant Gambit.

Discuss

Rules for reader comments

 
 

Not registered yet? Register

shivasundar shivasundar 10/29/2025 10:49
It would be nice if we can find parts of the "last deleted [twitch?] stream(s)", ChessBase. Somebody should have surely posted it/recorded them and put them out somewhere, if not youtube.... It is important to point out, ChessBase (@Frederic), that this is certainly not the LAST interview of Danya. The last (video) one - I know of - is the latest CSQPOD interview (available on their website: timestamped to 22:56, around when the podcast host Christian Chirilla and Fabi both talk to Danya): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6IXinTtaMc&t=1376s RIP Danya.
calvinamari calvinamari 10/28/2025 11:27
It is interesting to note, as described in a later ChessBase headline, that FIDE is looking at ALL of Kramnik’s unfounded accusations against Naroditsky over the extended period in which he made them. That point should not be lost. It picks up on a potentially very relevant facet of this tragedy —the fact that it appears that Kramnik may have persisted precisely because it so obviously affected Daniel. After all, Daniel tried to defend himself and very often spoke publicly of the psychological harm he was suffering due to the Kramnik’s accusations. If this was indeed the case, we are confronted with a very specific and terrible kind of evil. It is not just cruelty; it is cruelty animated by fascination with its own power. You could call it the intoxication of control over another’s interior world — the pleasure of seeing one’s words and actions produce visible suffering in someone else and then treating that reaction as fuel. It’s evil as feedback loop. The unfounded accusation yields an outsized reaction, and the reaction yields reiterated unfounded accusations precisely due to the accuser’s increased sense of potency. That, in turn, yields yet more harm, and the cycle continues. The accuser creates destruction out of fascination with his own potency. There is a cold precision to that kind of malice. It is not simple rage or ignorance; it is predatory — the will to fashion another’s suffering as a grotesque personal work of art, haughtily proud of one’s ability to author harm. The person discovers that they can cause pain, and that knowledge begins to substitute for meaning. That type of destruction out of perverse fascination surely is not ordinary thoughtlessness but rather a demonic desecration of empathy itself. The tragedy, of course, is that it is the most sensitive and finely tuned souls — those most responsive to the moral texture of things — who register that type of cruelty most acutely and thus are most at risk.
arzi arzi 10/26/2025 02:48
Not all people are the same. Some are bullied and some are bullies. If you have had a hard time in life before but have overcome it, it does not mean that everyone will overcome it like you. Life would be boring if everyone were the same. Even though we are different, everyone should have the same rights to a life free from bullying.

FIDE has also taken a position on this issue.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/26/2025 11:19
@calvinamari, as I said, I'm not the topic. We are discussing harassment here and I don't see how your latest ad hominem fallacy relates to the topic at all, unless you want to illustrate how harassment looks like.

@bdshahab I think your example greatly differs from the one of Naroditsky. You made a huge mistake and people still relate to it. But everyone made huge mistakes. Naroditsky's example is not about a mistake, but about a baseless accusation by Kramnik and long-term harassment that obviously damaged the integrity of the person. It's the equivalent of you being accused by a high profile person of stealing and then the very people whose opinion you care about start to believe the allegations. A mistake of yours is an error of judgement at the time. But the thing Naroditsky was accused of is moral insanity. If he committed suicide - I do not know whether that was the case - then he may have decided he doesn't want to live in a world that questions his moral integrity. Not everyone has the psychological strength to deal with the consequences of being falsely accused. This is why we all should try to be kinder to others and to only accuse them publicly of ill conduct if we have very good reason. His peeking to the chat screen was not a valid reason to be accused.
bdshahab bdshahab 10/25/2025 09:49
This was a huge weakness of this chess grandmaster! And not that the problem is absolute freedom of speech! 🤦‍♂️

I suffered a huge loss in the stock market more than five years ago, and many people still make fun of me for that substantial loss and for not selling my shares at a profit. But I didn't commit suicide! 🤭
Of course, I was accustomed to being teased since childhood, and these days I sometimes make fun of myself so that later I can make critic of people around me about their beliefs, for example. 😁
calvinamari calvinamari 10/25/2025 06:11
Even assuming, arguendo, that I was addressing you, to call an argument off base is not tantamount to calling its thinker bad or evil or stupid — as though intellect and identity were indistinguishably fused in a single, trembling ego. Reason makes no allowances for fragility or philosophical cowardice masquerading as civility. The mistake lies in confusing humiliation with correction — a confusion especially common among those who regard every disagreement as a form of personal violence. One must not mistake self-esteem for thought. One suspects, in truth, that many who whimper “ad hominem!” do so not from love of logic but from fear of it. They seek refuge in etiquette when reason grows uncomfortable. Yet the intellect is not a parlor game; it is a discipline, and one sometimes must bruise vanity in the service of clarity. To refute a folly is not to insult a person — it is to pay them the compliment of assuming they might one day think better. One grows weary of this sentimental fragility—the belief that every correction is cruelty, that every rebuke is a personal slight. If one cannot distinguish between an attack upon an idea and an attack upon oneself, one ought not to venture into the public forum but retire instead to some padded chamber of affirmation, where one’s errors can be gently applauded rather than examined. Reason is not therapy. If, however, you believe you ARE your argument, that you embody it such that your "ad hominem" accusation is apt, I can only recommend reincarnation as a sturdier organism.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 10/25/2025 10:15
Lajosarpad,
This is off-topic, but Short's allegations lose most if not all of their weigth when you compare them with his reports on the San Luis tournament. See for a summary chessbase 2/3/2007, bottom of the article.
For the rest, I can stand that some emotion get into discussions like below. No big deal.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/25/2025 09:35
@calvinamari you accuse some people, possibly me of "whataboutism", a fallacy. It consists of an attempt to switch the topic to something else in order to undermine an argument of a counterpart. However, my position was that baseless cheating is harmful and we should condemn any such cheating allegations until substantive evidence is presented and I did not find others trying to speak about other topics instead. Since Naroditsky was not the only person to be accused of cheating in a baseless manner I find it completely valid to illustrate a point with past events because 1. I did not want to switch the topic, 2. The past examples were brought in to show that whilst it is completely valid to condemn the baseless accusation now, I sense some hypocrisy in the position of some people whom condemn baseless accusation now, whilst in the past they themselves also did it and they never admitted to be wrong in doing so.

Yet, whilst you accused me (or someone else?) of making a fallacy, you resorted to an ad hominem fallacy:

"Such people do not reason; they perform distraction."

Sorry, but I am not the topic of this discussion nor Frits Fritschy. Let's discuss Naroditsky's death and baseless accusations.

@arzi you only have to pay secretly if you accept those terms. Magnus could have gone to court and very probably lose the legal proceedings. But some people are more sensitive. Naroditsky has been struggling really hard due to it.

@fructosobedogus I remember him playing a match with Lékó, then with Topalov, then a tournament in Mexico where he lost the title, then against Anand and many many tournaments. Quite an interesting way to hide.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/25/2025 09:34
@Frits Fritschy Short "observed something sinister in San Luis": "Nigel Short, who was in San Luis, observed something sinister in San Luis." https://en.chessbase.com/post/nigel-short-pushes-for-cheating-enquiry

I did not claim he was the first to accuse Topalov. But his allegation had weight, so I considered them to be important.

Even though people can privately express concerns, they are not always doing so, even in classical chess, as Carlsen, Danailov, Topalov or Mamedyarov did it famously, so even though it is possible, some people do it publicly nevertheless.

Calvinamari could have referred to me. Or you. Doesn't matter. Parallels meant to illustrate a point without any aim to drift the topic are not whataboutisms.
fructosobedogus fructosobedogus 10/25/2025 12:03
Kramnik all his life has been a coward, arrogant. A wonderfll player without doubt, but his only big achievement was beat Kasparov in 2000, and since then on... hided and avoided a rematch, full of hypocracy, requiring Kadparov to qualify, when he was always eliminated and never won a qualification in his life
arzi arzi 10/24/2025 04:45
There are two types of evidence in this case, oral and electronic. Oral evidence is available from relatives and friends with whom the victim has been in contact due to the bullying. Electronic evidence is available from the sender of the message, the reciever of the message and/or the service provider, if applicable. Finding evidence, if any, does not require miracles, but a little effort.
Frederic Frederic 10/24/2025 04:39
I have added a video, of his last broadcast. I will be adding new bits of information here, as they arise. In the meantime you can read about what I said about cheating, over a decade ago: https://en.chessbase.com/post/a-history-of-cheating-in-chess-5. There are links to the first four parts at the bottom.
arzi arzi 10/24/2025 04:33
Ask Magnus what will happen if you accuse somebody in public without evidence ... you get to pay for it albeit secretly not publicly.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 10/24/2025 04:33
calvinamari,
Please refer directly to me in the future.
A clear set of rules and procedures could have stopped Kramnik short. An enforceable sanction and increased sanctions for repeated behaviour might work better than shouting: 'hang him high'. A 'strong deterrent' should be created, but if it's not there, you can't use it. I do hope it will be found in Kramnik's case, but I have my doubts.
arzi arzi 10/24/2025 03:34
It doesn't matter whether the accusation of cheating (without supporting evidence) occurs in an over the board game (OTB) or an online game. The same rules apply in both. You can't break the law just because you're online. For example, you may get to pay what seems like compensation for defamation if the offender gives false information of you. The same applies to accusations of cheating. The opponent can of course be suspicious from other player and ask FIDE or the organizer who controls the games to investigate possible cheating, but the player himself cannot accuse in public the other one without evidence.
calvinamari calvinamari 10/24/2025 03:01
Past anecdotes where suspicions were raised are distinct from the pattern and practice of Kramnik’s unfounded campaign against Daniel Naroditsky that extended a year or more. And, as you recall, the Carlsen - Niemann situation indeed was resolved in a court settlement. I suspect that settlement was not worth much to Niemann — he was a past admitted cheater and Carlsen’s suspicions were mostly inferred from his actions related to one tournament event — but presumably the resolution was commensurate with the harm, such as it was.

There is a peculiarly modern vice of the mind—an evasive tic masquerading as dialectic—whereby any attempt to treat a matter clearly is immediately met with the querulous cry, “What about X?” It is the intellectual equivalent of throwing confetti into the wind and calling it an argument. Such people do not reason; they perform distraction. Their purpose is not to illumine a question but to make all questions indistinguishable in a fog of false equivalence. They confuse the incidental with the essential, the analogous with the antithetical, until the very possibility of moral or logical distinction dissolves into relativism.

To engage morally evasive "whataboutism" is to dignify incoherence. One must, instead, recall that reality is stubbornly particular: a fact is not refuted by gesturing vaguely toward a different fact. The only proper response is to wave the haze aside and return, unseduced, to the thing itself—where truth abides unrelenting in luminous particularity. And the thing itself, the matter at hand, is Kramnik's belligerent campaign, about which Daniel spoke in what appears to be the last words he ever uttered and about which Daniel's mother spoke in her only public comments on the day of her beloved son's funeral.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 10/24/2025 01:24
Ten years ago, GM Zhukova publicly accused IM Sandu in a Romanian women tournament of cheating. Zhukova got a three-months ban for not following proper procedure: filing a complaint with the tournament organizer and for the rest, keep her mouth shut. As was written in the FIDE Handbook. About what lajosarpad proposed: for classical chess, it is already there.
The problem is, it is not clear at all (at least to me, please correct me if I'm wrong) if these procedures extent to online tournaments. Moreover, can FIDE exert any jurisdiction over or any pressure on these tournaments? FIDE has rules for his own online arena, but I doubt these extend to other online competitions. If in the online community every organizer can have its own rules and procedures, there is no control over their contents and the way they are administered, and there are no sanctions when an organizer trespasses its own rules and procedures, but by way of civil law - quite complicated with people from all over the world.
The only way for FIDE to sanction unsubstantiated allegations is then using the rule of 'bringing the game into disrepute'. If the sanctioned person applies to the Court of Arbitration for Sport, the CAS will ask the above questions as well.
But, as I wrote before: the problem also lies within online chess. It is difficult to prove your innocence and it also is difficult to prove cheating; the only sure remedy is to have two arbiters on site. It's like having a football arbiter having to rely on tv footage and player statistics to make his decisions. Which is quite strange with the amount of money involved.
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 10/24/2025 12:26
lajosarpad,
You are wrong in connection with Short. The allegations came from the Russian camp; Short on the contrary in his reports on chessbase didn't believe in it. During the tournament he fraternized with the Topalov team (extensively reported by him on chessbase) and only later, when everyone turned against Topalov, he thought it wiser to change his opinion. Reason for Topalov's second, Cheparinov, to refuse to shake hands with him before a game between these two a little later.
Kramnik demanded special measures against cheating before his match against Topalov, like playing behind a glass wall in the match venue. That may well have been the reason for Topalov's behaviour later on.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/24/2025 10:56
But he is not the only accuser. I do remember that related to Topalov's fantastic results in Saint Luis 2005, Short accused him on charges according to which his manager, Danailov went out from the tournament hall with his phone frequently and had eye contact with Topalov. It was inappropriate to accuse them like this, instead Short should have proposed anti-cheating measures to prevent the kind of cheating he had suspicion of.

Then, one year later the same accused Topalov's team accused Kramnik of... making many computer moves and going to the toilet too often. It is quite ironic that Kramnik is doing the same thing that was done to him. Disgusting.

And then Carlsen accused Niemann. Where's the evidence, Magnus? And Nakamura also accused Niemann. Now hypocritically Nakamura judges over Kramnik - and he is right - so harshly, but he did the same thing.

So, what is the solution? Such accusations should be sent to a group of people whom specializes in evaluating these and to protect people from unfounded accusations. And we, the people should always condemn the accuser if there is no basis, no matter whether it's Kramnik, Topalov, Carlsen, Nakamura, Caruana, etc. etc. This is not a valid manner of conduct, independently of whether Naroditsky died because of this or not. Even if he died for other reasons, the next accused person may conduct suicide because of the accusation.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 10/24/2025 10:54
I don't know whether the accusations of Kramnik led to the death of mister Naroditsky. However, I propose for all of us not to lament whether it was a direct cause or not. I think a more productive question is: "could Kramnik's accusations lead to his death"? And the answer is "yes". Accusations that damage the reputation of a person, shaming him have the potential of causing serious harm to the person, including death.

Therefore I find Kramnik's accusations to be deeply harmful. I would not erase him from history, cancel culture is worse than the very problems it seeks to fix. I also do not believe in censorship. However, if Kramnik's accusations were baseless, then he may face disciplinary actions, which IMHO could lead to financial fine. But independently of whether he can be punished or not legally, I think that we, the people whom he wants to reach can punish him. By unsubscribing from all his channels and simply not watching his content. From that point he will have a very long road to make until he sort of recovers.
ChrisHolmes ChrisHolmes 10/24/2025 07:16
Basler88 seems to want to rewrite history when he talks about revoking World Championship & GM titles.

I think in the Naroditsky case, we simply don't have enough facts about the cause of death to rush to judgment & blame Kramnik. For all the official information currently available, he might have died of pancreatic cancer. Who can we find to blame for that? Quick, we must have a culprit!

By Basler88's logic, Alekhine's title should be revoked for his support of the Nazis & his anti-semitic articles during World War II. Botvinnik's title should perhaps also be forfeited because he was the product of Stalin's murderous regime, & then those GMs from the Soviet School of chess be stripped of their titles.

& I certainly hope that FIDE will not revert to its ostrich approach of pretending Kasparov wasn't the real World Champion, after his match with Short, however worthy the FIDE "world champions" they put in his place (Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov, Ponomariov, Topalov). By Basler88's logic, Kasparov should have had his GM title taken away too. C'mon, be serious!
arzi arzi 10/24/2025 07:04
Frits Frtschy:"...Instead of scapegoating one person it may be better to look for solutions to prevent tragic events like this."

Nice thought but insufficent at least in this case. The incident between Niemann and Carlsen would have led to legal proceedings, but the parties made a secret agreement, the contents of which were not made public. However, it is likely that Carlsen had to pay Niemann. We are now in a situation where one of the parties is dead. I think the Naroditsky family should conduct an investigation into the matter and then take legal action accordingly.

The legal proceedings could in principle be held either in Switzerland or the USA. The family would probably want it to take place in USA, which Kramnik would certainly not want.
calvinamari calvinamari 10/24/2025 04:38
" it may be better to look for solutions to prevent tragic events like this."

For instance, creating a very strong deterrent?

To wrongfully accuse another is to inflict a wound upon both truth and personhood. The accuser, having trespassed against the sanctity of another’s good name, is responsible for the consequences. Kramnik endlessly publicized his phantasms of suspicion both in English and Russian chess forums, to which Daniel, also a Russian speaker, was constantly exposed.

Kramnik presumes the prerogatives of conscience while abdicating its obligations. Chess is an ideal game to teach to children for many reasons that parallel life lessons. One lesson is that actions, such as impetuous moves or unsound attacks with insufficient material, have consequences. The deserved consequences here can never be commensurate with the harm done, but that does not mean that all possible consequences should not be pursued.
Roxy_Knight Roxy_Knight 10/24/2025 12:29
So Tragic , GM Daniel Naroditsky was blessing for Chess Community. Kramnik actions have been evil , targeted and repeated endless. Naroditsky not his only victim, other top ranked players as well , but its Kramnik first kill. Hopefully this Creep is stopped
Frits Fritschy Frits Fritschy 10/23/2025 11:58
calvinamari,
Interesting point. The same concept exists in Dutch case law. In 1939 a man was convicted for assault resulting in death. He had thrown a soft slipper at his wife, breaking a soft spot in her skull. The reasoning was that (1) his aim was to harm her, and (2) there was a direct connection between his action and her death. In the case of Kramnik both points are not easily proven. His aim may well have been to get stricter control on cheating. His actions resulting in others attacking Naroditsky may raise doubts about the directness of the connection. Just being insensitive is not enough.
By the way, if Kramnik himself gets into mental problems because of comments like those of Nihal Sarin (see above), do you think the latter should be held responsible as well?
Instead of scapegoating one person it may be better to look for solutions to prevent tragic events like this. There are rules for classical chess about how individuals should complain about possible cheating and procedures to investigate these complaints which also protect the accused, but are they implemented in private online tournaments as well, or do the rules of the organizer prevail? Will those private organizers accept the lead of FIDE? I tried to look it up in the FIDE Handbook, but couldn't find a clear answer.
And, as I commented on the previous article, the problem may be online chess itself.
mjfitch1 mjfitch1 10/23/2025 11:20
PS: mr. toiletgate is PROJECTING his sins on everyone else. OBVIOUSLY, going down the same mental road as Fischer...
mjfitch1 mjfitch1 10/23/2025 11:12
kramnik is a 1st class POS...
basler88 basler88 10/23/2025 10:19
Kramnik's conduct has brought discredit to the chess community. It is imperative that FIDE takes appropriate disciplinary action, as this is not the first instance of unfounded accusations of cheating that have caused significant mental and professional harm to other players. It is our belief that his World Championship and Grandmaster titles should be reconsidered or revoked. His behavior is highly inappropriate and unbecoming of a respected figure in the sport. Furthermore, I would caution that his name should no longer be associated with official chess publications or events, in order to preserve the integrity of the game. I’m going so far and say, he is in the class of Putin and Trump.
fgkdjlkag fgkdjlkag 10/23/2025 07:47
I haven't followed Kramnik's commentary over time but I interpreted the last statement above of Kramnik to mean he had previously raised the alarm for Naroditsky's mental deterioration and/or substance use (not sure if this happened), not a reference to cheating allegations. Of course any mental deterioration was likely caused by Kramniks' unfounded accusations.

This is mental illness of Kramnik, delusions regarding many dozens of innocent players that he believes are cheating. It is not unusual for a world champion, at least Morphy and Fischer before.
I'm sure this eye-tracking stuff of Naroditsky is all nonsense but it can be analysed, I believe eye-tracking is already used by a top site to investigate cheating. Anyway it's known that ppl gaze in certain directions when calculating so that has to be taken into account.
Steven E DuCharm Steven E DuCharm 10/23/2025 05:53
I believe part of Kramnik's accusation is the movement of Naroditsky's eyes during game(s)namely appearing to look off screen
calvinamari calvinamari 10/23/2025 03:23
There is a concept in Anglo-American law called the Egg Shell Skull Rule. It is a legal and moral doctrine in tort law that holds a defendant responsible for the full extent of a plaintiff's injuries, even if those injuries are more severe than expected due to a pre-existing condition. One who causes harm must "take the victim as they find them," meaning they are liable for all the harm that flows from their wrongful act, regardless of the victim's physical or mental vulnerabilities. The rule ensures that victims with pre-existing conditions can receive full compensation for damages that result from the defendant's negligence or intentional tort. A defendant cannot argue that they should not be held liable because the plaintiff had an unusual condition that made them more susceptible to harm. The rule applies even if the extent of the injury is uncommon or unforeseeable to the defendant. As long as the defendant's wrongful act was a direct cause of the injury, they are responsible for the full consequences. If, for example, a person with an extremely brittle bone condition (an "egg shell skull") is negligently or intentionally subject to physical trauma, the person at fault is responsible for the full damages, including the broken bones, even though a person with healthy bones might not have been injured at all. Or, if intentional and unfounded allegations of cheating against Hiraku Nakamura is something he can psychologically brush off, but those same intentional and unfounded allegations against Daniel Naroditsky cause the most profound psychological and physical harm, the person at fault is responsible for the full degree of harm caused.
arzi arzi 10/23/2025 02:46
Now we should clarify the issue of making unproven accusations. What are the consequences of accusations that are either untrue or have no evidence. One incident involved Carlsen deciding to cast doubt on Niemann, without any evidence. If Naroditsky's death is related to the continued, perhaps unfounded accusations of a former chess champion, then there should also be consequences for the accuser, if he is proven wrong. Freedom of speech is important, but it cannot be used to spread false or unfounded accusations.
1