GM Vladimir Kramnik has lost his lawsuit against Dutch chess magazine New In Chess over an article that accused the former world champion of cyberbullying GM Daniel Naroditsky. An Amsterdam court ruled that the article was not unlawful, rejected all of Kramnik’s claims, and ordered him to pay €4,449 (~$5,150) in litigation costs.
A nine-page judgment, issued on Tuesday and reviewed by Chess.com, rejected Kramnik’s demands, which included removing the article, publishing a correction, prohibiting similar statements in the future, and making an immediate €30,000 payment in damages.
The court ruled that New In Chess, as the publisher of a journalistic publication covering a matter of public interest, was entitled to broad freedom of expression. It found that the description of Kramnik’s conduct as “cyberbullying” was sufficiently explained and substantiated.
New In Chess shared an email from its lawyer announcing the result.
We received this letter from our lawyer. Unsurprisingly, Kramnik lost his defamation suit against New In Chess.
The case has cost us more than €25k. It was pointless from the beginning and we had full confidence in the legality of our article. pic.twitter.com/NQlRYIG63A
— New In Chess (@NewInChess) September 1, 2026
Kramnik did not respond to Chess.com’s request for comment. Shortly after the verdict, he said in a post on his X account that he had not received the judgment and alleged that New In Chess had received “privileged treatment” from the court.
He also claimed the magazine’s lawyers were given more time to present their arguments during the August 18 hearing and that the judge interrupted him when he attempted to address what he described as “factual fabrications” by New In Chess.
Seemingly New in chess continue enjoying priviliged treatment from Court
( as during hearing when they were provided 20plus minutes of presenting their position against 10 minutes of my legal representative without any adequate justification of this,
or me being cut by Judge…— Vladimir Kramnik (@VBkramnik) September 1, 2026
In a follow-up on Wednesday, Kramnik said he had received the ruling and confirmed that he would appeal.
Finally received the Court Decision in case against New In Chess
There are numerous evident conceptual flaws in Decision, in our evidence backed opinion.
Of course, such Decision text SHALL ( and WILL ) be appealed.
I have no slightest doubt personally, the Decision will be…
— Vladimir Kramnik (@VBkramnik) September 2, 2026
Kramnik did not specify the alleged flaws, but said he is convinced that the ruling will be overturned following his appeal.
New In Chess owner GM Jacob Aagaard, as well as Leon Watson, the author of the article, declined Chess.com’s request for a comment on the ruling. However, Aagaard shared his thoughts in a post on X: “Importantly: the court did not grant him protection from insults, while he is busy insulting others.”
Unsurprisingly, Kramnik lost his lawsuit against New In Chess. It was rejected on all points.
Kramnik felt insulted by the article, but it was not deemed false or unlawful.
Importantly: the court did not grant him protection from insults, while he is busy insulting others. https://t.co/X0x9b5rN30
— GM Jacob Aagaard (@GMJacobAagaard) September 1, 2026
The final judgment had not appeared in the Dutch judiciary’s public database at the time of writing, although New In Chess and Kramnik had both received copies.
The lawsuit concerned A Very Public Feud, a six-page article by former Chess.com journalist Leon Watson, published in New In Chess 2025/8 on December 15, 2025. Its introduction states, “Daniel Naroditsky was the victim of cyberbullying at the hands of Vladimir Kramnik.”
The article examined the increasingly bitter dispute between Kramnik and Naroditsky over the former world champion’s suspicions of cheating in online chess. It also discussed the impact of Kramnik’s public allegations on Naroditsky, GM David Navara, and others, along with claims that anonymous social-media accounts attacking Kramnik’s critics may have been operated by Kramnik himself.
Naroditsky died unexpectedly on October 19, 2025, at the age of 29. His death was later ruled an accident. Although the article stressed that the circumstances surrounding his death should not be the subject of speculation, it argued that Kramnik’s accusations had weighed heavily on Naroditsky.
Kramnik first demanded that New In Chess remove the article in a letter dated April 13. He also sought a correction, information on the number of copies sold, damages, a signed undertaking to refrain from similar statements, and €6,000 in legal fees.
In an email the following day, New In Chess said there was “zero chance” of a settlement involving a payment as outlined by Kramnik.
New In Chess took the article offline temporarily on July 31, but the parties could not reach an agreement. A summons was issued on Kramnik’s behalf on July 22, and a hearing took place in Amsterdam on August 18, with Kramnik participating by video link.
In court, Kramnik sought:
- The article to be removed from New In Chess’s website and all other online locations.
- A correction on the magazine’s homepage, other websites, and social media accounts.
- A ban on future statements suggesting that he contributed to Naroditsky’s death, committed cyberbullying or intimidation against Naroditsky or other players, or was mentally unstable.
- A penalty of €10,000 for every day New In Chess failed to comply.
- An immediate payment of €30,000, or alternatively damages to be determined later.
The demands were all refused by the court.
The court discussed Kramnik’s right to protect his honor and reputation against New In Chess’s right to comment critically on matters of public interest.
It described “cyberbullying” as a subjective concept and a value judgment, noting that value judgments cannot be proved in the same way as factual allegations.
The term cyberbullying is not used lightly in the article, but is explained and substantiated by the circumstances and statements presented.
The court also found the July 3 decision by FIDE’s Ethics & Disciplinary Commission (EDC), which found Kramnik guilty of multiple violations, including cyberbullying, psychological abuse, and false or unjustified accusations, to be relevant.
The EDC concluded that Kramnik’s conduct toward Naroditsky and other players involved “unwanted, repeated and intentional, aggressive behavior.” Although the FIDE decision was issued after the New In Chess article was published, the Amsterdam court cited it as additional support for the magazine’s use of the term.
The court said:
Under these circumstances, New in Chess did not act unlawfully by using the term.
The court also addressed Kramnik’s argument that the article created a suggestive connection between his conduct and Naroditsky’s death.
It found that the article discussed Naroditsky’s death alongside the cyberbullying preceding it but did not explicitly claim that one caused the other.
While the average reader may well get the impression that such a link exists, this is not in itself unlawful. The untimely death of chess grandmaster Naroditsky is a matter of the greatest conceivable public interest within the chess community. Furthermore, the fact that Naroditsky’s well-being had seriously deteriorated prior to his death, as a result of the “devastating impact” of accusations of cheating, is also of great public interest. By discussing these circumstances together, the article draws attention to an abuse within the chess community: cyberbullying. That abuse justifies an open public discussion, in which the fact that statements are perceived as shocking, offensive or disturbing is insufficient for a finding that they are unlawful.
The court also highlighted Kramnik’s status and his prominent role in the public debate about cheating.
It is also relevant that Kramnik, as a public figure with a very wide reach within the chess community, himself actively participates in the public debate on subjects he regards as abuses, such as cheating through the use of electronic aids.
The judgment continued:
It is plausible that Kramnik, because of his status within the chess community and the active and provocative manner in which he participates in the public debate, has a significant impact within that community.
This means that Kramnik, in turn, must tolerate strong criticism and other statements concerning him, even where these do not benefit his honor and reputation.
The same reasoning applied to comments in the article questioning Kramnik’s mental well-being. The court referred to his public cheating accusations and insinuations of a criminal conspiracy, including his use of the term “chess mafia.”
Criticism and comments concerning his mental health arising from that conduct were permissible within the context of a heated debate on a matter of public interest, the court ruled.
Kramnik denied operating anonymous “burner accounts” used to post comments online. The court did not find that Kramnik had used such accounts, but noted that the article presented the claims as something believed by “internet sleuths,” rather than as an established fact. It also added that Kramnik had not made it plausible that the claim was incorrect.
Kramnik further alleged that several quotations in the article were inaccurate or fabricated.
The court said their accuracy could not be determined in summary proceedings, where there was no room for a more extensive factual investigation. As a result, it could not conclude that publishing them was unlawful.
New In Chess acknowledged that the words “Kramnik has blood on his hands,” attributed to GM Nihal Sarin, were a paraphrase of Nihal’s actual statement, “He has kind of literally taken a life,” said in an interview with The Indian Express.
The verdict states:
To the extent that Kramnik objects to this paraphrase, this consideration in the present judgment sufficiently addresses his objection. There are no grounds for an injunction or a correction thereof.
New In Chess argued that Kramnik’s case was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation, commonly known as SLAPP, and sought reimbursement of its full legal costs.
The court acknowledged that the lawsuit sought to restrict New In Chess’s participation in public debate but found that Kramnik’s claims were neither manifestly unfounded nor an abuse of the legal process. He was therefore ordered to pay the standard litigation costs of €4,449 rather than New In Chess’s full legal bill, which the magazine said exceeded €25,000 (~$29,000).
In a response on X, New In Chess suggested readers help cover legal costs by subscribing, or buying one of Daniel Naroditsky’s books.
Please subscribe to New In Chess Magazine or perhaps buy one of the re-issued Daniel Naroditsky books?
— New In Chess (@NewInChess) September 1, 2026
The ruling was issued in summary proceedings. The ordinary appeal period in a Dutch kort geding is four weeks.
