Kramnik's methods

Many people underestimate the scale of Kramnik's actions.

I believe they, along with many others, are underestimating the depth of the issue (which isn’t about cheating but about attacks) and are, secondly, trying to look at this situation from a certain civilizational perspective. But bullies don't need logical arguments, especially if they demand it.

Here are some common misconceptions about Kramnik:
Misconception 1: Kramnik has high moral standards. This is a controversial.
Misconception 2: Kramnik seeks dialogue and a resolution to the questions he raises. It’s the opposite.
Misconception 3: Kramnik fights against cheating. This is just a front.

My opinion is as follows:
- Kramnik isn’t specifically attacking people like Naroditsky, Nakamura, or Levi 'Gotham'. His actions are directed at chess.com and the entire part structure of modern chess represented by this platform.
- Kramnik uses methods typical of modern Russia — lies, manipulation, distorted perspectives, and victimhood.

Kramnik’s Methods

Let's first examine the methods used by Kramnik and then move on to analyzing his goals.

Untarnished Reputation. Kramnik’s primary method is to build an image of a truth-seeker who supposedly only uses honest methods. To do this, he constantly emphasizes that his main goal is to seek truth, that he never lies, and that he is a former world champion. There’s a saying in Russia: “Praise yourself publicly enough, and people will forget the source but remember the message.” Using such methods is hardly a sign of the high moral standards that he so persistently claims to uphold.

Limiting the Opponent. Another key method is to restrict his opponent while using limitations himself. This simultaneously puts the opponent in a defensive position and creates the impression that Kramnik doesn’t resort to such tactics. In reality, it’s the opposite.

For example, when Kramnik is caught lying, he claims his words were taken out of context or didn’t mean what they seemed to mean. Or he says that it’s an insignificant detail. Meanwhile, if his opponent generalizes or makes a mistake, Kramnik immediately calls it a deliberate lie and repeatedly brings up that point.

False Equivalence. This involves equating violations of different scales. An example: Naroditsky’s use of ChessBase in a speedrun in a winning position against a low-rated opponent is equated with playing under a different account in a tournament with prize money. These actions are incomparable: it’s as if a grandfather hid an ace in a game with his grandson and did the same thing in a casino.

Victim Role. Kramnik condemns others for playing the victim but often complains about being treated unfairly, ignored by chess.com, and Nakamura’s rudeness. Notable examples include:

1) Attacking streamer M. Galchenko, whom Kramnik later compared to Pavlik Morozov after Galchenko exposed Kramnik's use of another account. For context, Pavlik Morozov was a Soviet-era hero who denounced his father for aiding rich farmers by issuing them fake documents, which led to his father's imprisonment. Later, Pavlik was found murdered, and his grandfather, grandmother, cousin, and godfather were convicted of the crime as revenge for his betrayal. Kramnik compared himself to Pavlik’s father, allegedly betrayed by Galchenko, who supposedly played the role of Pavlik. Let me remind you — before this, Kramnik made a video “exposing” Galchenko, or as he would put it, “asking questions.”
2) On Levitov’s stream, he stated that since Naroditsky didn’t stand up for him against Nakamura, he would now harshly criticize Naroditsky.

Shifting the Burden of Proof. Kramnik demands answers and proof of the absence of something — manipulation known as “shifting the burden of proof.” For instance, he challenges people to prove the absence of cheating, which is impossible by definition.

Insinuations and Defamation through Questions. Although not his main method, Kramnik uses it widely. He calls his investigations “questions,” which is also a manipulation tactic. There are specific terms for this: insinuation, the technique of leading questions, and questions containing assumptions. In serious cases, courts can consider this defamation through insinuation. They evaluate intent and consequences, such as whether the statements were aimed at a broad audience, the emotional tone of the information, and how it was perceived by the audience. If it’s proven that the questions were framed to deliberately damage a reputation, the plaintiff may receive compensation.

These methods are also observed in the international politics of Kramnik’s home country. Constantly play the victim, claim deception, say no one listens, and use this as justification for aggression. I believe Kramnik has adopted these methods, and as we can see, they are working. The more logically an opponent responds, the easier it becomes for the manipulator.

Kramnik’s Goals

While I can’t read Kramnik’s mind, some conclusions seem logical to me. I recognize these as my own assumptions, which should be taken critically, compared with what’s been discussed above, and analyzed based on personal observation. Naturally, I see these facts through the prism of my own experience (🇺🇦).

His goals resemble those of Karjakin, equally petty. Karjakin seeks to block chess.com in Russia due to the flags hidden following the invasion of Ukraine. Kramnik, on the other hand, seems to want to disrupt the current balance, undermining chess.com from within. He seeks to destroy the platform’s reputation, accusing it of self-interest and supposed indifference to chess, while sparing other sites. That’s why he returned to chess.com despite claiming he wouldn’t. You can judge the value of his word.

How to Act?

Don’t Respond to Provocations. One goal of bullies is to provoke a reaction. Avoid replying to their messages if possible. If a response is necessary, keep it brief and to the point, with no further details, arguments, or disputes.

Save Evidence. Take screenshots of conversations, posts, and messages that can be considered cyberbullying. Use services like https://perma.cc/ or similar ones that preserve pages at a specific time with timestamps — this is important for potential reporting to platform administration or authorities.

Report to Administration (YouTube, Twitter). If the aggressor violates platform rules, their account may be temporarily or permanently blocked.

Seek Legal Help. If cyberbullying includes threats or defamation, consider contacting law enforcement. For example, Kramnik’s tweet stating he would start publishing investigations when Naroditsky didn't accepted a $50,000 match could be seen as blackmail. He later responded that he intended to publish it anyway, but this should be evaluated legally, rather than taking his word for it.

I want to state once again that underestimating this attack will lead to the normalization of such behavior, damage to individual reputations, and worse consequences.
 
Thank you for your attention