Kramnik, Lawyers, and His Theatre of "Truth"

So. When you think chess world cannot be more like theatre, former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik comes on stage. Not with bishops, but, it seems, with his lawyers very ready. This new video, a very long speech, he says it is for GM David Navara. But it is clear, it is for many people, maybe people who are easy to convince by such dramatics. It is a masterclass in… well, something quite self-serving. Let's look closely at this, what he calls an "artificial scandal", though who is being artificial here is perhaps the real question.

Kramnik, it looks, wants us to believe he is under terrible attack. He talks of "continuous attacks," "defamation, insults, and threats" for a whole year. And why? For his so-called noble act of "publishing statistics and trying to tell the truth". Whose truth, one might ask? And is this how one shares it? It is story we hear before: one man, he insists he knows the truth, against everyone else painted as ignorant or bad. He describes a chess world where media is "very much controlled by certain structures", an "Alice in Wonderland" world  – a convenient way, perhaps, to dismiss any narrative that doesn't praise him. And funny, or not so funny, this outburst happens just after he filed a complaint to EU regulators about chess.com  – a detail he makes sure we cannot miss.

The main point of this particular drama is statistics Kramnik published, which included Navara. Navara, as anyone with sense can understand, did not like this. This, Kramnik claims, led to an "organized attack"  – a grand conspiracy, it seems, against his numbers. And here, it becomes very… theatrical. Kramnik, fresh from a "long meeting with my lawyers", informs us this is not just simple defamation for civil law. No, it could be a criminal case, by Swiss law. He even generously lays out potential prison time for false accusations and slander  – a clear, and rather ugly, warning shot meant to silence Navara.

It is quite a performance, this heavy-handed show. Kramnik paints Navara as a mere "pawn", a "tool"  used by some shadowy, bad people he never names. He pours out so much (perhaps too much?) sorrow for Navara, warning him that anyone supporting him now will "disappear immediately" when faced with a judge, leaving Navara alone with "significant legal troubles". "It's not a threat, it's my sincere warning," Kramnik says, just before detailing how Navara’s claims are causing "enormous" damage to his precious name and reputation. The concern rings rather hollow when paired with such aggressive legal posturing.

Kramnik stands defiantly by his statistics, claiming they are "completely correct, at least according to our calculations"  and that he's ready, even eager, to explain them – but only in court, it seems. He cannot understand why publishing his version of "true statistics"  could cause such an uproar, comparing the chess world unfavorably to tennis where athletes face anti-doping scrutiny. "What world are we living in?" he laments. Perhaps one where people question those who anoint themselves the sole arbiters of truth, especially when they seem so reluctant to have an open discussion without lawyers present.

The most striking, and frankly, disturbing part of Kramnik’s video is his aggressive dissection of Navara's statements regarding suicidal thoughts. Kramnik, very meticulously, points to Navara’s public letter which, according to Kramnik, implies his statistics and the online fallout led to Navara experiencing suicidal thoughts in mid-June 2024. Kramnik then contrasts this with a podcast where Navara allegedly attributed similar feelings in mid-January to FIDE's handling of his complaints. This discrepancy, Kramnik triumphantly argues, makes Navara's claim against him a "very, very serious legally" false accusation, even citing Swiss criminal code. The implication is not just clear, but hammered home: Navara is not just wrong; he's a dangerous, actionable liar. This feels less like a clarification and more like an attempt to utterly discredit and intimidate.

Kramnik says many times, he does not want to damage Navara. But, you see, he has "no other option to protect my name". His magnanimous solution for Navara to avoid this legal storm? A public refutation of "untrue statements," public apologies in Kramnik's direction, and, most revealingly, the "disclosure of some forces if there was some forces who were behind you". This "offer" sounds less like a path to resolution and more like a demand for total capitulation and the naming of supposed conspirators – a tactic from a very old, unpleasant playbook.

Throughout this nearly hour-long address, Kramnik relentlessly positions himself as the aggrieved party, the martyr forced into a legal corner, simply for trying to uphold the integrity of the game through his statistical lens. He dismisses out of hand any notion that his approach might be flawed, or that he bears any responsibility for how his "innocent, rather innocent, actually, tweet"  was perceived. He finds it "very strange" that he has to explain "such basic things", as if his perspective is the only valid one.

Having observed many such power plays and ego-driven machinations within the chess world, and with a sharp interest in genuine accountability, this entire spectacle is… deeply cynical. Is this truly a principled, if overly aggressive, attempt to defend a reputation and fight for an objective truth? Or is it a calculated, bullying move to silence criticism, control a narrative, and intimidate opponents, all under the guise of seeking justice? The performance, frankly, leans heavily towards the latter.

Kramnik tells Navara, "The reality is very different, David", warning him not to listen to the "fake, fake bubble, you know, which calls chess media". One might suggest that reality, for most of us, also includes a certain humility and a responsibility for how one wields power and influence in public discourse, especially when reputations and well-being are at stake. Shouting about "truth" while threatening legal action hardly fosters an environment of open dialogue or fair play.

The chess world certainly deserves better than to be constantly dragged through these personalized, aggressive legalistic battles. Whether this particular crusade by Kramnik will lead to any positive change, or simply more acrimony, deeper divisions, and a chilling effect on legitimate discussion, remains to be seen. But one thing is very clear: The Chess Inquisitor will be watching this charade. And taking very careful notes.