Carlsen: “Karjakin wants to become a martyr”

by ChessBase
4/6/2022 – In an interview for the Norwegian newspaper VG, Magnus Carlsen talked about the recent developments involving Sergey Karjakin. The world champion clearly stated that he disagrees with his colleague’s stance, but also noted that he is not sure whether banning him from official tournaments was the right decision. | Photo: Albert Silver

ChessBase 16 - Mega package Edition 2022 ChessBase 16 - Mega package Edition 2022

Your key to fresh ideas, precise analyses and targeted training!
Everyone uses ChessBase, from the World Champion to the amateur next door. It is the program of choice for anyone who loves the game and wants to know more about it. Start your personal success story with ChessBase and enjoy the game even more.


“I don’t know if it’s good or not”

Read the full article at

A number of players have already shared their opinions regarding FIDE’s decision to ban Sergey Karjakin for six months, which will likely prevent the Russian from participating in the Candidates Tournament (pending a potential appeal).

Although all condemn the Russian’s stance on the invasion, some, like Maxime Vachier-Lagrave, doubt whether banning Karjakin was the right decision. Others, like Wesley So, fully agree with the decision, while Daniil Dubov considers FIDE’s decision to be illogical — according to him, they should either not ban him at all or ban him for much longer.

Magnus Carlsen, the reigning world champion, had not talked much about the subject. In an interview for the Norwegian newspaper VG, Carlsen clearly stated that he disagrees with his colleague’s stance, but also noted that he is not sure whether banning him from official tournaments was the right decision.

Many Russians who previously either openly supported Putin or did not talk much about it have chosen to alter their views and now state that Putin has gone too far. Karjakin has gone the other way. He has increased his support for Putin. That type of attitude cannot be accepted.

[...] Of course, I do not agree with Karjakin on anything, but whether it is right to exclude people for opinions that we do not tolerate, I’m not sure. Maybe it pays off in a difficult time, but you also set a precedent for what may come later.

[...] Is it good that we are letting him have what he wants? He wants to become a martyr of the West’s “sanctions tyranny”. Now he is allowed to tell that story at home — and that works well there. We are helping him in doing so, we are letting him have what he wants. I don’t know if it’s good or not, I’m not sure.


Reports about chess: tournaments, championships, portraits, interviews, World Championships, product launches and more.


Rules for reader comments


Not registered yet? Register

lajosarpad lajosarpad 5/15/2022 02:57
@SunriseK thank you for your deep thoughts, fact-based reasoning and balanced views, which are critical to both the Russian aggressor, the Ukrainian provocations and I especially thank you for pointing out that Ukraine has a nazi problem. Some people here (Arzi and Martas) had no better arguments against the statement that Ukraine has a nazi problem than

1. Suggesting that I'm sharing Russian propaganda. How convenient for Martas to reject what I said and what is factually true out of hand. He just labels it as "Russian propaganda". So, if he does not like what I say, but has no arguments, then I expect him to provide this kind of superficial kind of "argument".
2. Applying whataboutism, digressing the topic towards nazis in Hungary, as if that would have any relevance to our topic and especially Arzi seems to believe that if there are nazis in Hungary, then I as a Hungarian am not allowed to speak about Ukrainian nazis. He is saying that "nazis are not anymore", but that does not prevent him from caliming that there are nazis in Hungary. Consistency of thought was never the forte of socialists (of the national or international type)
3. Asking for proofs (Martas), when this topic was already discussed in Chessbase and it is obviously true that the Azov battalion is a nazi group that's endangering minorities in Ukraine
lajosarpad lajosarpad 5/15/2022 02:57
@arzi By the way, nobody claimed that there are no Russian nazis. This is why it is not debated. However, you and your comrades try to whitewash the Azov battalion, an openly and evidently nazi group. This is why we are speaking about it. If you would acknowledge that the Azov battalion is a nazi group and it is supported both by the Ukrainian government and western countries, then there would be no reason to debate this topic. So, paradoxically, you are one of the main reasons we are speaking about naziism in Ukraine, with your attempts to make sure that we do not speak about Ukrainian naziism.


""national" and "nazi" as attributes of parties."

Nationalism is the ideology that seeks to advance the interests of a nation. It can be socialist, in which case it is nazi. Or it can be non-socialist, like an economically liberal party that's culturally nationalist. It's not rocket science, I don't understand what's complicated in that for you.

national-socialist <=> national socialist

nazi is short-hand for national-socialist. Have you managed to learn the rules of chess?
lajosarpad lajosarpad 5/15/2022 02:56
@arzi "Btw lajosarpad, in my opinion, all countries that weaken the position of minority, reduce the activities of the press... are "nazi" states. "

So, Finland, which prosecutes Päivi Räsänen ( for quoting the Bible and harrassing her for months, is it a nazi state? In Finland, after all, believing Christians are a minority ( So, Finland has the nerve for harrassing Christians for quoting the Bible. I find that egregious. But I don't consider Finland to be a nazi state. Nor Hungary. Nor Ukraine. But, nevertheless, the nazi problem in Ukraine is threatening and harrassing Hungarians of Transcarpathia. And you expect me, a Hungarian to be silent about what is threatening other Hungarians. How come that you clearly intend to silence others about this? Do you side with the nazis of the Azov battalion? It would be strange from a far-leftist such as yourself, but I should not be surprised given the fact that Stalin and Hitler were also allies for a while. After all, socialists are not that different from each-other, be them nationalistic or internationalistic.

It's very interesting that you quote Wikipedia, because when I quoted from Wikipedia, you have constantly criticized me for doing so. You are being hypocritical. In general I have no problem if someone quotes Wikipedia, but it is hilarious to see that you do so after criticizing me for the same thing. Bravo!
lajosarpad lajosarpad 5/15/2022 02:56

"If you don't like to talk about "nazis" in Hungary you should stop talking about "nazis" in Ukraine."

Quite a dumb statement. We are speaking about Karjakin "wanting to become a martyr". That's a statement in the context of the Russo-Ukrainian war. So, the Azov battalion, the nazi group in Ukraine is on-topic. Speaking about Hungarian nazis is off-topic. It is a fallacy called "whataboutism", which essentially consists of dragging some off-topics into the discussion to shift the focus from something you do not want to talk about. It is obvious that you dislike the discussion about the Azov battalion, a Ukrainian nazi group. But I do not give a damn about that. You cannot convince me to be silent about the Ukrainian nazis, no matter how many off-topics and accusations you write. I have never denied the fact that there are nazis in Hungary and we both know that there are nazis in Finland as well. But the existence of Hungarian nazis does not imply that I should be silent about Ukrainian nazis. You are being inconsistent and hypocritical as well, because in an attempt to make sure that we do not talk about Ukrainian nazis (why is that even important?) you try to silence me by pointing to Hungarian nazis. But you are not silent about Hungarian nazis even though there are Finnish nazis, so you apply double-standards and condemn me for the exact thing you do as well. There is a serious nazi problem in Ukraine in the form of the Azov battalion and it is terrorizing minorities:

You try to cover that up. Why?

"In Hungary there are thousands of extremists, so called "nazis", but it doesn't mean that the whole nation is nazi-nation."

Straw man fallacy. I have not claimed Ukraine to be a "nazi-nation". Why do you misrepresent what I said?
lajosarpad lajosarpad 5/15/2022 04:45
@Martas I do not care about Russian propaganda. The Azov battalion is a literally nazi group, I have already shared a picture that proves it. Also, you can read many articles about them in western media ( The Ukrainian government supports them. Western powers arm them. It is strange that you ignore all these.

Nazi is shorthand for national-socialism, the ideology of the NSDAP. Why is it difficult to understand that in order to be a nazi, one has to be nationalist and socialist at the same time? FIDESZ is national-conservative, so it is not a nazi. Jobbik is a leftist party now, that was a nazi party before it switched its ideology. Mi Hazánk is a nazi party. You could have asked me about these if you wanted to have a clearer picture about Hungary instead of brazenly insinuating dishonesty on my part.

"Your ideas are very close to connect terms "nazi" and "self-defence". "

I sense some sweat in the fallacious "argument" above. Self-defense is a basic right on the individual and national level alike and it is independent of ideology, as it is a military affair. Naziism is national-socialism and it is an ideology which is culturally nationalistic and economically socialist.

"Ideology - nationalism, lajosarpad limits this to progressive and socialist in order to exclude Jobbik, interesting point is that in 2014 this party was labeled as anti-Semitic and neo-nazi and started to redefine itself as conservative. "

You should have had the decency to not put words into my mouth. I did not bring up Jobbik to this discussion, so you cannot know my opinion about them, hence your claim is baseless and of ill faith. To clarify, Jobbik has a nazi past, but in 2018 they transformed into a leftist party. Their former supporters are now voting for the Mi Hazánk party, which is a nazi party, while Jobbik has changed its ideology.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 5/15/2022 04:26
@arzi Nazi is shorthand for national-socialism, which is a political ideology that's culturally nationalist and economically socialist. So, if a party is on the extreme right, then it is not necessarily a nazi party. It needs to be socialist as well in order to be nazi. You are very much confused about the term. FIDESZ is not extreme-right, since it does not advocate for political violence or the overthrow of the constitutional democracy. In order for one to be an extremist, one needs to be either advocating political violence or the overthrowing of constitutional democracy. Since FIDESZ does not want any of this, it is a moderate right-wing party. And since it's not socialist, it cannot be a nazi either.

It is absurd that on the sole basis that I'm Hungarian and there are nazis in Hungary, according to your opinion I should not speak about the nazi problem of Ukraine. So, if someone is sick, he/she should be silent of the diseases of others? Your position is utterly ridiculous. And you base your argument on Jobbik. Hilarious. You were hoping that they will win. After all, they were in the coalition formed by opposition parties against FIDESZ. And when they lost by a landslide, you have written lots of offending comments about Hungary, maybe to provoke me, maybe out of frustration. Yes, Jobbik has a nazi past, but they lost in the election. And you were sad. Your arguments are a parody.
Martas Martas 5/8/2022 09:55
@SunriseK : "I don't exactly know what Karjakin told"
Karjakin expressed full support to Russian invasion, exact quotes can be found on google, they were also discussed under this article or under previous on (FIDE Ethics imposes a six-month ban on Karjakin). Up to everybody's opinion whether this is just a stupid and innocent opinion or full support of propaganda leading to genocide, or being somewhere between these two extreme points of view. In both extreme cases you are right, it would be highly unfair to treat GM different then ordinary chess players. In all other cases it's a matter of damage done by these statements, which of course is higher in case of GM. In case of FIDE both options (ban or no ban) can be explained and in case of candidates tournament it's a matter of risking to ruin that tournament because players and sponsors who might have a problem participating if Karjakin is allowed to play.
Precedence was already set with Alekhine's invitation to London 46 which was withdrawn after protests of competitors. In any occupation (meaning job) you have to be careful with your public statements, loosing job because of public damage done to your employer is nothing extraordinary, especially in case of higher position.
And regarding reasons of Karjakin's opinion/hate, you mentioned , you might have in mind other incidents from the era of Yanukovich and Berkut. By picking one side and ignoring the other one my end up on side of propaganda, unfortunately it could be propaganda which tries to go above level of the one from Goebbels.
SunriseK SunriseK 5/2/2022 01:16
arzi, I already said (in my last posts) that art. 19 of Human Rights Declaration is not intended to allow you to tell all things, like for example hate speech. That's because of art. 29/2, which correctly limit freedom of speech in some cases. Have you carefully read my posts? So of course I agree with you in such a case.
But I don't agree that a GM must necessarily and constantly be "an example to many people in chess world"; that seems to me highly unfair to the GM (and also this I already said, if you have carefully read my previous posts). About FIDE stricter rules I've also already said: if they are just aimed to prevent hate speech, they are ok (but unnecessary, being that already covered by art. 29/2 and constitutional and specific laws of any democracy). Instead if they are aimed to intimidate people and prevent them to express their opinions, they are simply illegal! Read my O(5).
I believe that in Karjakin's case we are in the latter situation; at least this is what in my opinion transpires through the EDC document (I don't exactly know what Karjakin told). If instead you know something which Karjakin told that is specifically against art. 29/2, just tell me that (with some trustable font of course) and I will rethink about the whole question. But it would be strange that EDC didn't know such a thing and didn't already tell about that, in its documented decision about Karjakin.
arzi arzi 4/30/2022 05:07
And do we not agree that freedom of the speech does not give you a freedom to say whatever you want, whether you are an ordinary person or a GM? However GM needs to be more specific about what he says because he is an example to many people in chess world. The chess organization has rules that prevent hate speech. This is not a question of interfering with freedom of expression.
SunriseK SunriseK 4/30/2022 12:47
Another example: you cannot use art. 19 to justify a slander against someone else, like if I would tell "the person A is a thief" when this is a lie (more accurately said: when I don't have any legal proof that A is really a thief). In such a case, A can sue me for slander speech and any judge will condemn me, of course.
Anyway, these extreme cases are not relevant: Karjakin didn't tell such things. As I said before (according to EDC document), Karjakin told a couple of true things (that there are some nazis in Ukraine and that European security is at risk); then he added a series of highly questionable statements or naive things, but they are all simply personal opinions and nothing against art. 29; so according to art. 19 he has the right of publicly express such opinions, even if I (or any other human being on the face of the Earth) believe that his opinions are wrong or silly, etc.
And btw, is of course very easy to agree with someone who is telling something that I already agree with; so the real purpose of art. 19 is to grant the right to express personal opinions when they are very different from what the most part of people believe and even highly questionable opinions. ;-)
And anyone shouldn't be molested or intimidated because of such opinions (provided they are not against art. 29), like for example the menace to be banned from chess tournaments if he is a GM.
SunriseK SunriseK 4/30/2022 12:35
2) "You mean that as a private person you can spread hate against the other people without any punishments but if you put the GM -hat on your head, you are guilty and should be banned?" Again no, of course not! Art. 19 of Human Rights Declaration (btw, have you read such Declaration?) grants the right to every human being to publicly express his own opinions; but of course, as art. 29/2 states "In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."
So you cannot for example use freedom of speech granted by art. 19 to prevent other people the exercise of their own rights and freedoms, or to harm the morality, public order and general warfare of a democratic society.
The hypotetical speech you imagined "Kill every Ukrainians, they are nazis" (apart being a very silly statement, that btw Karjakin didn't really tell) is obviously against Ukrainians rights and freedoms, and being an "hate speech" is also against the morality, public order, etc. So nobody has the right to tell such things and anyone can be legally prosecuted in case he is telling such things.
SunriseK SunriseK 4/30/2022 12:12
@arzi: thanks for telling me that something is not crystal clear in my O6 (opinion #6) post; I will try to explain my thoughts better.
1) "Do I have to understand your message that, as Grandmaster, Karjakin is not allowed to say what saliva brings to his lips, but as a private person it is possible?" No, this is not what I was meaning; my O6 was intended to contest points 7.22 and 7.23 of the EDC decision (have you read that PDF file?), when they say “International grandmasters and other title holders may be seen as informal ambassadors of the game of chess”. It seems absurd to me that a human being must be always considered an ambassador of chess (because he is a GM), even when he is telling things that have nothing to do with chess (or FIDE) questions. I also contest that “such actions negatively affects the game of chess or FIDE”: so if a GM is telling for example some silly thing like "seriously I believe that 1 + 1 = 3", this should negatively affects chess or FIDE? It seem really ridiculous to me; at maximum it will only affect the reputation of that GM (not because he is a GM, but as a human being of course). In other words, if he is not kidding, I would start to suspect that such GM is a silly person as a human being (certainly not as a GM), but of course I would never think he is negatively affecting chess or FIDE simply by telling a stupid thing which is completely unrelated to chess or FIDE.
arzi arzi 4/29/2022 02:24
SunriseK O6"it’s obvious to me that Karjakin spoke not as a FIDE GM, but as a simple human being with his own opinions, as any other simple human being. He can speak as a GM or FIDE member only while talking about the chess game or about FIDE (which he didn’t talk, unlike Shipov)."

Do I have to understand your message that, as Grandmaster, Karjakin is not allowed to say what saliva brings to his lips, but as a private person it is possible? You mean that as a private person you can spread hate against the other people without any punishments but if you put the GM -hat on your head, you are guilty and should be banned?

Private Karjakin:"Kill every Ukrainians, they are nazis." -> You have a right to say your "opinion" (art. 19 of Human Rights declaration).

GM Karjakin:" Kill every Ukrainians, they are nazis." -> You have not a right to say your "opinion" (art. 19 of Human Rights declaration).

So, everyone must therefore first declare that they are private person and only then spread hate speech. If you spread hate speech without prior warning, you will be banned for example from chess or sports circles, otherwise you will not. Maybe this logic also applies to other speech "crimes"? They are not crimes if you have announced in advance that you are a private person.
SunriseK SunriseK 4/19/2022 10:35
O(10 of 10) Conclusions: it seems to me that EDC document is full of contradictory, unjustified and even illogical statements; in particular Karjakin’s ban seems to me motivated only by political reasons against his personal opinions, which are certainly highly questionable, but which he has the human right to believe and publicly tell.
In my humble opinion, if one thing is really against FIDE and causes it to “appear in unjustifiable unfavoruable light and in this way damage its reputation” as art. 2.2.10 of Code of Ethics states, is ironically just the EDC Chamber’s decision itself upon Karjakin and Shipov! This is to my memory the darkest page of FIDE since its creation in 1924; so I hope it will be at least amended in the near future.
SunriseK SunriseK 4/19/2022 10:33
O(9) About favouring one particular side of the conflict, I think that is always difficult to say which side started, depending on the definition of the expression “starting a war”; it seems that FIDE (and unfortunately almost all UE leaders too) decided that russian started the war on 24th February, but… for example: why the Ukrainian armed forces since 12th February (and even up to the night of 24th February, until the russian invasion!) started to bomb Donetsk and other zones of Donbass under control of the filo – russian separatists? Is this not meaning to start a war? Why not? And, giving the fact that Ukraine had a big part of russian army around his borders, is it a wise idea of someone who wants peace, to start such provocative bombings? Not to mention that canadian and british soldiers were already in Ukraine (they were retired from Ukraine only on 11th February): what were NATO troops doing inside a non-NATO country? And not to mention that encouraging ukrainian neo-Nazis since ten years ago is a sure way to create big tensions, thus certainly preparing a war… And is it more responsible who started a war or who prepared it?
SunriseK SunriseK 4/19/2022 10:31
O(8) Comparing Karjakin to Shipov, finally I find very absurd that instead EDC Chamber decided that “Sergey Shipov is found not guilty”; and this because he “is considerably less known and has therefore a less powerful platform”! Are we joking??? Unfortunately, not. So, in EDC Chamber’s opinion, the more famous a GM is, the more his freedom of speech should be limited! An unbelievable opinion and even against fundamental art. 2 of Human Rights declaration!
Notice also that it is not true that “The statements made by Sergey Shipov are also of a slightly different and less provocative character than the ones made by Karjakin”: according to EDC document and as far as FIDE reputation is involved, it seems that Shipov “has published posts containing among other things criticism against FIDE becoming a political organization”, thus really “negatively affecting FIDE” as EDC previously stated.
Maybe Shipov is not guilty because he told the truth? :-) In fact it also seems to me that FIDE is becoming a political organization; apart deciding in favour of only one side of the conflict, FIDE for example even took the decision to ban russian or belorussian flags! So, even russian or belorussian players who are against this war cannot use their own flag. Isn’t this political decision by FIDE very illogical and unfair to them? And I said in the premises that I believe that any private organization like FIDE should not mix with politics.
SunriseK SunriseK 4/19/2022 10:30
O(6) I also contest points 7.22 and 7.23 when they say that “International grandmasters and other title holders may be seen as informal ambassadors of the game of chess” and that “such actions negatively affects the game of chess or FIDE”: it’s obvious to me that Karjakin spoke not as a FIDE GM, but as a simple human being with his own opinions, as any other simple human being. He can speak as a GM or FIDE member only while talking about the chess game or about FIDE (which he didn’t talk, unlike Shipov). It seems that EDC Chamber believes that every time a GM is speaking, he is always talking as an “ambassador of chess”, thus negating his rights as a human being, which seems to me deeply unfair and discriminatory! I also cannot see how Karjakin’s statements can “negatively affects the game of chess or FIDE”. He has the right to tell what he believes about other arguments, such as politics; chess or FIDE have nothing to do with his freedom of speech! I’m an avid chess follower and I don’t see any detriment to game of chess nor FIDE in Karjakin’s posts.
O(7) Then I also contest the point 7.39: I don’t agree at all with the opinable and patriotic parts of Karjakin’s speeches, but I find ridiculous to argue that this can “damage the reputation of the game of chess (like he would have said for instance things such as “the game of chess is very bad; don’t play it!”) or FIDE (like he would have said for instance things such as “FIDE is a bad organization, boycott it!”). I agree only on the fact that “The likelihood that these statements will damage the reputation of Sergey Karjakin personally is also considerable”, but this point is not an argument of the discussion and regards only the future of Karjakin himself.
SunriseK SunriseK 4/19/2022 10:29
O(5) I have found a lot of things to contest in the EDC decision. One is the point 7.11 of EDC document when it states “An association, as FIDE, may impose stricter duties on its members than the duties imposed on citizens by criminal law”: yes, but… such “stricter duties” cannot be illegal! Universal Declaration of Human Rights is a primary international law and FIDE (or any other association) cannot impose anything against such a law, in this case against art. 19 about freedom of speech. EDC also cites art. 10 of European Convention on Human Rights as example of reasons to limit freedom of speech, but I don’t see anything in the previously mentioned tweets by Karjakin who are against such art. 10: he just told the objective truth on certain points, while showing patriotic support and personal legitimate opinions on other points.
SunriseK SunriseK 4/19/2022 10:28
O(3) About the Odessa’s events, it’s really a series of complicated things with clashes between filo-russians (anti-Maidan) and neo-nazis (pro-Maidan), and with crimes from both sides. It’s true that “46 anti-Maidan, and two pro-Maidan activists died and over 200 people were injured as a result of the confrontations”. Finally about Karjakin wearing boxing gloves, it seems to me a bit ridiculous and naive, but certainly not much relevant if compared to the other things. Also, as a defensive statement, “Karjakin has forwarded a brief submission… with the following content: ‘I can only say that I support my country and my President’”. An opinable statement, but I believe Karjakin has all the rights to be patriot of his country.
O(4) In synthesis, it seems to me that Karjakin told a series of: 1) true statements, or 2) naive statements or 3) opinable statements. About true statements, I certainly cannot blame him; about naive or opinable statements, I don’t agree, but I’m convinced he has all the rights to think them and also to publicly say them if he so believes, as art. 19 of Human Rights declaration (cited also by EDC Chamber) states that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.”
SunriseK SunriseK 4/19/2022 10:26
O(2) About Karjakin’s support for the war, I can only say that it seems to me a rather naive statement, to say the least: it seems he is completely and blindly trusting his President. About the genocide, I believe that probably there have been some genocides on both sides, like in all similar situations in the history. About putting the security of Europe at risk, this is obviously true: we are all risking even WW3 from such a war! About neo-Nazis in Ukraine, this is also blatantly true and easily verifiable too: for example, just read, on english wikipedia, the pages about “Tryzub_(organization)”, “Right_Sector”, “Azov_Battalion” and “Dmytro_Yarosh”! Yarosh “was one of the founders of the Ukrainian nationalist organisation Tryzub” and “From 2013 to 2015, he led the Right Sector organisation”. You will also find that “Yarosh calls himself a follower of Stepan Bandera“ (Bandera, born on 1909 and dead in 1959, was an ukrainian criminal and terrorist; he collaborated with Nazis and in 1934 he orchestrated the assassination of a polish Minister of Interior! You can easily find his wiki page “Stepan_Bandera”). Most alarmingly, “On November 2, 2021, Yarosh said on social media he had been appointed Adviser to the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of Ukraine Valerii Zaluzhnyi. In response to a (December 2021) request by Ukrayinska Pravda the General Staff of the Armed Forces of Ukraine refused to disclose details of its alleged cooperation with Yarosh citing the confidentiality of the information requested”! So almost certainly there are neo-nazis even inside the ukrainian government, wow! :-o
Thus I’m not surprised about the pictures of ukrainian neonazis posted by Karjakin, though of course this is just a part and not all of the Ukraine.
SunriseK SunriseK 4/19/2022 10:25
Bearing in mind such premises, I carefully read the EDC file and I formed the following opinions on such a case:

O(1 of 10) According to EDC document, it seems that GM Karjakin has “published a letter of support for Russia’s President Putin and the ‘special operation’. The letter contains, among other things, allegations against the Ukrainian government for genocide and for putting the security of all of Europe at risk. Karjakin encourages the operation against Ukraine in hope that this will lead to ‘demitilarization and denazification of Ukraine’. The referral also includes examples of other tweets by Karjakin, containing pictures of what is said to be Ukrainian soldiers holding a photo of Adolf Hitler and symbols of Nazism along with the statement from Karjakin: ‘This is Ukraine’. In additional tweets, Karjakin has referred to ‘the tragedy in Odessa’ and claims that the Ukrainian authorities has protected the persons being responsible for the tragedy. Sergey Karjakin also published a picture of himself wearing boxing gloves with a reference to ‘Russian Spring’.”
SunriseK SunriseK 4/19/2022 10:22
P(6) I know that since Stalin’s times, most of the russian leaders were strongly “putting their noses” into the world of russian chess; also they tipically had a preferred strong russian player, which they constantly tried to protect and help, also sometimes in unfair manners: Stalin had Botvinnik, Breznev had Petrosian and then Karpov, Putin had Kramnik and then Karjakin. Curiously, they are all defensive and positional style type of players, LOL. :-)
P(7) I completely dislike such a behaviour from the russian leaderships and I’m instead strongly convinced that politics should never be mixed with leisures like sports or games and especially with chess. Conversely, I’m also strongly convinced that chess world should never try to mix with politics.
P(8 of 8) I must also tell that, though I know of course that GM Sergey Karjakin is a very strong chess player and I studied some of his best games, I’m not particularly following him, I’m not at all one of his fans and I don’t know anything about his twitter account. I also unfortunately don’t understand russian language, so to form my opinion I had to rely only upon what is written on the PDF of the EDC Chamber about this case. It would have been much better to have the original statements of Karjakin (or Shipov) as a starting point, but I was unable to find them; if anyone else would be so kind to let me know them or giving me some links to an english translation of them, I would be grateful and happy.
SunriseK SunriseK 4/19/2022 10:21
P(3) In any human dispute including two sides, nobody has 100% chance to be correct (apart mathematics) and each side is partly correct and partly wrong; especially in political questions, chance is that these parts are around 50% each. So every commentator can only express just humble opinions and every opinion is legitimate and must be respected.
P(4) Of course I’m on the side of Human Rights, so I’m against all wars; anyway, particularly I try to focus on those who are behind the public scene and are creating the conditions to favour the wars; people who are obviously not really fighting, who are comfortably standing in some discreet office and who are wrongly perceived by people around them to be generally good persons, but who are really the very guilty ones! Secondly I focus on bad politician leaders, who are acting according to the directives of the former lurking ones. And then there is the low level of the people who are physically fighting, though I’m not very interested in this public domain’s part of the war, involving the real battles and the naive and often fanatical people who are fighting them.
P(5) I have been watching world politics since many decades ago and often I noticed bad actions from many politician leaders (and good actions from few of them); no marvel that among the worst of such politicians is in particular Vladimir Putin. I’m not at all one of his fans nor supporter. But unfortunately there are many others similar to him in the world.
SunriseK SunriseK 4/19/2022 10:20
My opinions on recent Karjakin’s ban from FIDE’s EDC.

P(1 of 8) wars don’t start because of real human problems (these can be just the sparks of wars); instead they are actively and secretly pursued and created, little by little, by weapons producers around the world; and guess in which countries are the most important of such producers? ;-) About Ukrainian – Russian war, they began to prepare this actual conflict since at least 10 years ago.
P(2) to reach such goals, weapon producers (who are of course very wealthy) use all possible methods, especially corrupting political leaders (which is rather easy, given the fact that very often political leaders are corruptible, apart the few honest men among them); a relatively recent example of that, is the ex – Yugoslavia’s war: the relatives of the political leaders which directly caused the conflict are still milking from the secret swiss bank accounts that were created at the time, with the money received from weapon producers to corrupt such men from all the sides involved. Another method is to create problems in a certain area of the world (e.g. creating and financing terrorist groups).
SunriseK SunriseK 4/19/2022 09:33
As usual, I find Carlsen's words enlightening and wise.
He pointed out some interesting things from a ethical, logical and practical point of view.
For example, to exclude a player like Karjakin would set in fact a double - sided dangerous precedent:
- to exclude a player who has already gained the right to play the Candidates;
- to exclude a player just because he expressed his own opinions (even if questionable), moreover on a matter that has nothing to do with chess.
So by the way in the future every FIDE member, especially strong GMs, will be afraid to tell his/her own opinions! A terrible, and certainly against human rights, probable outcome!
Also to help him to become a martyr seems clearly wrong from a logical and practical point of view.

Instead I would like to share my opinions on the case more from a legal (but partly also ethical and logical) point of view, in the hope that such thoughts of my own could help finding the best solution and, if they are correct, possibly enlighten some other people.
So I prepared a document, but the problem is that it is a bit long, so I would have to split it in many posts, if Chessbase will kindly allow me to do so.
arzi arzi 4/19/2022 01:51
Some wiki:
Russian National Unity (RNU; transcribed Russkoe natsionalnoe edinstvo RNE) or All-Russian civic patriotic movement "Russian National Unity" (Russian: Всероссийское общественное патриотическое движение "Русское национальное единство"), was an unregistered neo-Nazi, irredentist group based in Russia and formerly operating in states with Russian-speaking populations. It was founded by the ultra-nationalist Alexander Barkashov.
After the ban on the group, some of the leaders of RNU were jailed and the group was split into a number of other groups. The members of these new groups, namely Alexander Barkashov, Russian Orthodox Army, and others have since have engaged in religious activities and pro-Russian activism in Donbas conflict. They also support the Russian invasion of Ukraine and expressed their readiness to fight against the Ukraine."

Quite interesting. Neo-nazis in Eastern-Ukraine seem to be Russian origin?
arzi arzi 4/19/2022 11:55
Some wiki:
"In modern Hungary, the ultranationalist Jobbik is regarded by some scholars as a neo-Nazi party; for example, it has been termed as such by Randolph L. Braham. The party denies being neo-Nazi, although "there is extensive proof that the leading members of the party made no effort to hide their racism and anti-Semitism. `Rudolf Paksa, a scholar of the Hungarian far-right, describes Jobbik as "anti-Semitic, racist, homophobic and chauvinistic" but not as neo-Nazi because it does not pursue the establishment of a totalitarian regime.` Historian Krisztián Ungváry writes that: `It is safe to say that certain messages of Jobbik can be called open neo-Nazi propaganda. However, it is quite certain that the popularity of the party is not due to these statements.` "
arzi arzi 4/19/2022 11:42
Some wiki:
"Nazism, the common name in English for National Socialism. It was frequently referred to as Hitlerism, in 1930s. Nazism is a form of fascism, with disdain for liberal democracy and the parliamentary system. It incorporates fervent antisemitism, anti-communism, scientific racism, and the use of eugenics into its creed. The term "National Socialism" arose out of attempts to create a nationalist redefinition of socialism, as an alternative to both Marxist international socialism and free-market capitalism. Nazism rejected the Marxist concepts of class conflict and universal equality, opposed cosmopolitan internationalism, and sought to convince all parts of the new German society to subordinate their personal interests to the "common good", accepting political interests as the main priority of economic organisation, which tended to match the general outlook of collectivism or communitarianism rather than economic socialism.

Hitler and other Nazi legal theorists were inspired by America's institutional racism and saw it as the model to follow. In particular, they saw it as a model for the expansion of territory and the elimination of indigenous inhabitants therefrom, for laws denying full citizenship for blacks, which they wanted to implement also against Jews, and for racist immigration laws banning some races. Hitler presented the Nazis as a form of German fascism.

Following Nazi Germany's defeat in World War II and the end of the Holocaust, over the expressions of support for Nazi ideas were prohibited in Germany and other European countries. Nonetheless, movements which self-identify as National Socialist or which are described as adhering to Nazism continue to exist on the fringes of politics in many western societies. Usually espousing a white supremacist ideology, many deliberately adopt the symbols of Nazi Germany."
arzi arzi 4/19/2022 11:41
Some wiki:
In 2017, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution to condemn the glorification of Nazism. Most countries either abstained from or voted to support the resolution, but only three countries voted against the resolution which included the United States, Ukraine and Palau. America's cited reasoning for their opposition to the resolution, was freedom of speech concerns and that Russia was utilising the resolution as a political attack against Ukraine. Russian Foreign Ministry used this vote to suggest that Ukraine aligned with Nazism without context that both the United States and Ukraine strongly condemned it after the vote."
Martas Martas 4/19/2022 10:46
@lajosarpad : maybe it would make sense if you give some thoughts about correlation between "national" and "nazi" as attributes of parties. So far you excluded national-conservative from "nazi", then you limited "nazi" to "national, progressive and socialist", which so far can be understood only as implication " nazi => national+progressive+socialist ". Or did you mean it as 2 equivalent meanings "nazi <=> national+progressive+socialist" ?
Martas Martas 4/18/2022 09:45
lajosarpad: "A national-conservative party is not a nazi party. It represents national values, but seeks to conserve the values that already exist. By contrast, a nazi party is progressive and socialist."

So defending your country against any intruder is by default "nationalistic" (defending your nation) and "progressive" (getting rid of intruder obviously changes situation to better). Your ideas are very close to connect terms "nazi" and "self-defence".
Martas Martas 4/18/2022 07:59
@arzi "Do we have a common language? The word: nazi."

Yes, that's correct question, there are several meanings of this which are mixed together to excuse something inexcusable.
a/ Brutality of nazi Germany during WWII. This is main meaning of Russian propaganda using words "denazification" and "debanderization" to connect nowadays Ukraine with crimes of nazi Germany and provide an excuse for it's "special operation" and hiding real reasons.
b/ Homofobia. In case of nazi DE it was antisemitism wiith known outcome being genocide called holocaust. Russian propaganda doing good job in trying to achieve similar against Ukrainians. Main target is to keep moral level of soldiers, side-effect is behaviour of soldiers on occupied territory and support of this between ordinary people.
c/ Ideology - nationalism, lajosarpad limits this to progressive and socialist in order to exclude Jobbik, interesting point is that in 2014 this party was labeled as anti-Semitic and neo-nazi and started to redefine itself as conservative.
d/ public usage nazi symbols - problem of individuals, I'm not aware of any authorities supporting this in Ukraine or any other European country.

@lajosarpad " since the 40's the nazi problem never reached the severity of the nazi problem of Ukraine today. "
Can you point out to any party (including it's support in elections) or any facts pointing to Ukrainian nazi problem? Or just repeating russian propaganda? Anything that overcomes Ukrainian tries to join EU and solving problem with that caused by and
arzi arzi 4/15/2022 06:56
Btw lajosarpad, in my opinion, all countries that weaken the position of minority, reduce the activities of the press... are "nazi" states.
arzi arzi 4/15/2022 05:50
Nazis are not any more. Your opinion does not make it a fact. You are using the word nazi but in wrong placees. My opinion is that every far right parties, extremists, are nazis. However, this is only my opinion. Also, not every left side parties are communists. Extremists are in every group, in communists, in green side parties, in liberals...everywhere. In Hungary there are thousands of extremists, so called "nazis", but it doesn't mean that the whole nation is nazi-nation. If you don't like to talk about "nazis" in Hungary you should stop talking about "nazis" in Ukraine.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 4/15/2022 11:00
@arzi A national-conservative party is not a nazi party. It represents national values, but seeks to conserve the values that already exist. By contrast, a nazi party is progressive and socialist. The very fact that you have a right to write and nobody questions that does not mean that you should write about things where you have no information. Earlier I have answered the anti-Hungarian propaganda that you have shared and, instead of thanking me for informing you, you have said that my answer was "too long", yet, you have written a longer answer than the one you have criticized for its length. So you were clearly trolling on those threads. Are you trolling now?

"Every country which has a far left party in power, is a communist country, right?"

No. If a communist party is in power, that does not necessarily mean that the country itself is communist. In order for a country to be communist, a communist system needs to be in place. If the system is capitalist and democratic, then the country is not a communist country, even if it is led by a communist party.

"You cannot call people as nazis if you do not know what and who belong in that group."

Check your facts next time before you lecture others.

"Is everybody communist if he/she is not thinking like a good "capitalist"."

No. Capitalism is the ideology of the free market, private ownership. The antithesis of capitalism is socialism, that is, the ideology of state ownership. Communism is the revolutionary version of socialism. My opinion is that the non-revolutionary means to gain power in the case of socialism and the revolutionary means to obtain power in the case of communism are only tactical differences to obtain the same goal.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 4/15/2022 10:59
@arzi "Like all the far left parties are called communist?"

Those which seek to abolish private property via revolutionary means are obviously communists.

"If you call, lajosarpad, that in Ukraine there are nazis, then you have to admit that Hungary also have them."

That's the tu quoque fallacy. We are discussing Karjakin here and the presence or lack of presence of naziism in Hungary is not an argument for or against Karjakin's martyrdom. To answer your question, yes, there are nazis in Hungary as well, but the problem is much less serious in Hungary, given the fact that 1. there is no armed military force that adheres to this ideology, 2. Even the neonazis in Hungary are mostly peaceful people with their extremist views, they voted for the radical right (Mihazánk party), but that's about it. There was a more serious nazi problem in Hungary between 2002-2010 than now, but even the nazis in that period were not armed forces and since the 40's the nazi problem never reached the severity of the nazi problem of Ukraine today.

"The biggest party in Hungary is far right party, aka naziparty, right?"

I advise you to fact-check your sources. FIDESZ is a conservative party and it was anti-socialist from the start to this day. An anti-socialist party cannot be a national-SOCIALIST party and it expressed zero-tolerance to antisemitism, for example. There is a large difference between conservativism and naziism. You regularly write uninformed things about Hungary. See
lajosarpad lajosarpad 4/15/2022 10:59

"However, freedom of expression does not mean that you are free to say anything, such as inciting a crime.

Surely we all agree on this?"

Yes, these are the exact thoughts I expressed earlier.

"The word: nazi. Does it mean a name of a party in Germany about 80 years ago or is it a synonyme to all far right parties around the world?"

Nazi is a word which originally referred to the NSDAP, which stood for "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei" or, the National-Socialist Worker's Party. National-socialism is a world view, or ideology that is nationalist and socialist in the same time, that is, it seeks to abolish private property and represents nationalism, rather than internationalism. It opposes with classical communism defined by Marx and Engels, which seeks to abolish nationalism in an internationalist effort. Anyone who had or has this kind of world view is nazi. The Azov batallion in Ukraine is quite literally a nazi group, see

Communism is a political and economic doctrine that aims to replace private property and a profit-based economy with public ownership and communal control of at least the major means of production (e.g., mines, mills, and factories) and the natural resources of a society. Communism is thus a form of socialism—a higher and more advanced form, according to its advocates. Exactly how communism differs from socialism has long been a matter of debate, but the distinction rests largely on the communists’ adherence to the revolutionary socialism of Karl Marx.
lajosarpad lajosarpad 4/15/2022 10:58
@Martas the fact that there is a nazi problem in Ukraine does not validate the Russian invasion in my opinion.

"Because if not, then in case of Karjakin we are left with opinion containing pure nazi propaganda and full support of unjustified terror of neighbour country."

The propaganda is anti-nazi, it is very difficult to imagine a nazi propaganda that speaks about the need for "denazification". So the propaganda about denazification is closer to the radical left than to the radical right.

"So you would tolerate an "opinion" stating that you should be tortured until you understand that you are supposed to be only a slave without any rights?"

The above is an active call for violence. Please reread my earlier comments, as it seems there is a misunderstanding. My point was that every opinion should be tolerated unless they are active calls for violence.

Another point that we agree upon: Russian chess players who speak out against the war deserve praise.
arzi arzi 4/14/2022 04:32
If you are not agreed with me, lajosarpad, then something is wrong with your thoughts about nazis in Ukraine. You cannot call people as nazis if you do not know what and who belong in that group. Same is with the word, communist. Is everybody communist if he/she is not thinking like a good "capitalist". Or is it just the name for the man/woman of the far left party?
arzi arzi 4/14/2022 04:17
To lajosarpad and Martas, do we have a common "language"? The word: nazi. Does it mean a name of a party in Germany about 80 years ago or is it a synonyme to all far right parties around the world? Like all the far left parties are called communist? Right, wrong? If you call, lajosarpad, that in Ukraine there are nazis, then you have to admit that Hungary also have them. The biggest party in Hungary is far right party, aka naziparty, right? Every country which has a far left party in power, is a communist country, right?