FIDE Director Faces Backlash Over Comments Following Naroditsky’s Death

In the wake of the unexpected death of American grandmaster Daniel Naroditsky at age 29, both the governing body of chess and its leading figures have found themselves under scrutiny. The controversy reached a new peak when FIDE Director General Emil Sutovsky issued a public statement that questioned the authenticity of posthumous support while implicitly criticizing both players and institutions for failing Naroditsky while he was alive.

In a message posted on X (formerly Twitter), Sutovsky wrote:

“The amount of love given to Danya post-mortem is unprecedented. I can’t recall anything of the kind. But here is the problem — where were all of you when Danya was alive and unwell?”

He continued:

“One thing is clear: the way Kramnik approaches it, simply can’t be accepted. And his reaction on Danya’s passing is appalling and outright shameful. FIDE is not a court of justice, but we will act within our jurisdiction.”

Sutovsky pointed out that many who publicly proclaimed friendship or admiration for Naroditsky had offered little, if any, real support while he was alive, especially during months in which he appeared to withdraw from public commentary and streaming.

“Did many of you write him to ask, whether he is OK? Why he… disappeared from the screens?” he asked.

The Chess Community Reacts — In Anger and Defense

Sutovsky’s remarks triggered a swift and sharp backlash from the chess community. On Reddit’s r/chess board, a post titled “He has got to be kidding” gathered hundreds of upvotes and comments that accused Sutovsky of hypocrisy and deflection.

One user wrote:

“Emil having the audacity to ask where we were when FIDE did nothing and let Kramnik do whatever he wanted.”

Others were more blunt:

“Who in their right mind talks bad about someone who just passed and blames his family and friends for it? Kramnik and Emil are bad people for this angle.”

In many responses, Sutovsky was criticized for failing in his institutional role — to protect players and regulate harassment — while now shifting responsibility onto the circle of friends and fans.

A commenter wrote:

“Emil is as bad as Kramnik… This is resignation territory.”

Some defended the broader message about caring for individuals when they are alive:

“He’s not talking about Bortnyk. He’s talking about the many others who now claim they were close to Danya.”

But the dominant tone remained one of anger:

“Accusing others of not doing enough when he was one of the few people in a position to actually do something about Kramnik. He should resign.”

Context: Naroditsky’s Struggles and the Role of Kramnik

Naroditsky, a popular grandmaster and streaming personality, had in recent months stepped back from commentary and online activity. Those close to him say he was “not himself” and may have been dealing with isolation and pressure. Sutovsky referenced this:

“The events leading up to this tragedy happened in broad daylight over the last 18 months.”

Complicating the narrative is the role of Kramnik, who had publicly accused Naroditsky (and others) of cheating with little publicly disclosed evidence. Kramnik’s comments have drawn condemnation from players like Indian GM Nihal Sarin, who said Kramnik “has kind of literally taken a life.”

Sutovsky directly named Kramnik’s approach as unacceptable and pledged FIDE would act “within its jurisdiction.”

Institutional Responsibility Under Fire

By questioning where support was when Naroditsky was struggling, Sutovsky shifted part of the focus onto institutions, including FIDE itself. Many in the community felt the organization had been slow or unwilling to act when warnings were raised — particularly in the case of Kramnik’s accusations.

A Redditor commented:

“This is literally the same approach as Kramnik: ‘I warned people, I cared,’ while doing nothing when they had the power to act.”

Another wrote:

“FIDE could’ve taken action against Kramnik after Navara revealed how bad the accusations were. Where was the reaction then? None at all.”

Sutovsky’s message, though aiming to highlight a broader cultural failure — that of caring for people — ended up raising questions about his own role and that of the governing body.

A Dual Narrative: Tribute and Reckoning

On one level, Sutovsky’s post is a tribute to Naroditsky, acknowledging that while he brought joy to many, he may have suffered in silence:

“The boy with shining eyes had less and less shining left. And now, he is gone. Way too early.”

Yet at the same time, it serves as a critique — of Kramnik, of Naroditsky’s ergo-circle, and of the chess world at large.

“Virtue signalling and like-grabbing is the worst way to pay respect to Danya.”

This tension between tribute and reckoning is what has driven the intensity of the reactions.

What This Means for Chess — and for FIDE

The unfolding controversy raises several urgent questions for the chess community:

• Harassment & Reputation: To what extent should past players or high-profile figures such as Kramnik be held accountable for public accusations and their impact on younger players?
• Mental Health & Community Support: How should organizations and peers respond when a popular streamer or player withdraws or shows signs of distress?
• Institutional Trust: Can FIDE rebuild trust if it is perceived as having ignored calls for help or acted too little, too late?
• Digital Culture & Performative Mourning: Sutovsky’s critique of post-mortem tributes taps into a broader discussion about social media culture and empty gestures when lived support is missing.

Sutovsky’s pledge that “we will act within our jurisdiction” is a signal that FIDE may launch formal investigations or review procedures. Yet the backlash may undermine its leadership at a critical moment.

One user summarized the broader malaise:

“We have to live in a world with Emil and Kramnik — and in a world without Danya. That’s what hurts the most.”

Final Word

Emil Sutovsky’s comments after Daniel Naroditsky’s death have opened a painful chapter in chess — one of tribute, regret, accusation, and institutional accountability. They shine a light on the emotional and ethical costs of the game beyond the board: on streaming culture, public pressure, and the responsibilities that come with power.

For many fans and players, the question is no longer simply “Why did Danya die?” but “Could anything have been done sooner — by friends, peers or institutions — to prevent this tragedy?” Sutovsky’s post may have sparked debate, but it also poses a broader challenge to the chess world: to act when it matters, rather than only speaking when it’s too late.