Kramnik Once Faced Cheating Claims in Toiletgate — Now He’s the One Accusing

Vladimir Kramnik is once again at the center of controversy. In 2025, the former World Chess Champion has publicly accused several top players, including the late Daniel Naroditsky, of cheating online. His social media posts have drawn both support and outrage, reigniting debates about integrity and paranoia in modern chess.
But few remember that nearly two decades earlier, Kramnik himself was accused of doing exactly what he now condemns — during one of the strangest chapters in World Championship history: the 2006 “Toiletgate.”

A Match Meant to Reunify Chess

By 2006, chess was a divided world. The International Chess Federation (FIDE) and the “Classical” line of champions — which included Kramnik — had split after Garry Kasparov broke away in 1993.
The unification match between Kramnik (the Classical World Champion) and Veselin Topalov (the FIDE World Champion) in Elista, Kalmykia, was supposed to heal that rift. It would determine the undisputed world champion for the first time in 13 years.

Kramnik entered the match as the calm, strategic counterpoint to Topalov’s fiery, dynamic style. He started brilliantly, winning two of the first four games to take a 3–1 lead. But just as the chess world was settling in for a classic battle of styles, the match veered into chaos — not because of a move on the board, but because of a door leading to a toilet.

The Spark: “50 Bathroom Visits”

During the rest day after Game 4, Topalov’s manager, Silvio Danailov, filed a formal protest to FIDE’s Appeals Committee.
He accused Kramnik of making “an unusual number of visits to the bathroom” — around 50 times during one game — the only area not under video or audio surveillance. Danailov hinted that Kramnik might be using a computer or an electronic device hidden there, noting that many of his moves coincided with the recommendations of the chess engine Fritz 9.

The accusation instantly became global news. It was sensational — the idea that the reigning world champion might be cheating in the bathroom was too strange to ignore. Forums exploded, newspapers ran headlines like “The Toilet Scandal That Shook Chess,” and the nickname “Toiletgate” stuck.

FIDE Steps In — and Fans Take Sides

The Appeals Committee, led by FIDE officials Georgios Makropoulos, Jorge Vega, and Zurab Azmaiparashvili, reviewed video footage of the players’ restrooms.
They concluded that the frequency of Kramnik’s visits had indeed been exaggerated — but they still ruled that both players’ private toilets would be closed and replaced with a single shared one.

That decision triggered an uproar. Kramnik’s team, led by his manager Carsten Hensel, called the move “an infringement of his rights” and accused the Appeals Committee of bias toward Topalov’s camp. In an open letter to FIDE President Kirsan Ilyumzhinov, Hensel argued:

“The protests of the Topalov team are utterly disgraceful and touch Mr. Kramnik’s privacy… There is not a single reason or evidence to believe a player would have any kind of cheating possibilities.”

Kramnik saw the ruling as an attack on his dignity. Outraged, he refused to play Game 5 — effectively forfeiting it.
The match, once billed as the “Reunification of Chess,” now risked collapsing into a political farce.

The Match Nearly Collapses

For several tense days, the 2006 World Championship hung in limbo.
Kramnik declared that he would “stop playing this match as long as FIDE is not ready to respect [his] rights.”
Meanwhile, Topalov’s camp continued to leak provocative material — including photos of “cables” supposedly found in Kramnik’s bathroom, which they claimed could connect to hidden electronic devices. The images circulated widely online, fueling conspiracy theories despite lacking any credible technical basis.

Behind the scenes, FIDE scrambled to salvage the event. Eventually, both sides agreed to resume under the original conditions.
Kramnik returned to the board — down 3–2 after his forfeit — but visibly determined to prove his innocence where it mattered most: over the chessboard.

Redemption at the Board

The rest of the match became a tense, psychological battle. Neither player spoke to the other. They even avoided eye contact.
Kramnik, however, held his ground. He managed to equalize the score at 6–6 after 12 classical games, forcing a rapid tiebreak.

Under immense pressure, the Russian prevailed 2.5–1.5 in the tiebreaks, reclaiming the unified title and cementing his place in history as the undisputed World Champion.
But the personal and reputational scars from “Toiletgate” never fully healed.

To this day, Kramnik and Topalov reportedly do not shake hands when they meet at tournaments. The scandal left such bitterness that even the unification of the world title — the very purpose of that match — was overshadowed by suspicion and hostility.

The Privacy Question

While Kramnik was officially cleared, “Toiletgate” raised a broader issue about player surveillance in the age of computer chess.
Should restrooms, the last private space for players during a high-stakes match, be monitored?
The Appeals Committee’s decision to install cameras in rest areas (and later remove them) was deeply controversial. Many players felt it crossed a line. Kramnik’s defenders argued that chess was losing its dignity to paranoia.

Ironically, those same debates still echo today — especially as Kramnik now accuses modern grandmasters of cheating online or using AI assistance.
Back then, he was the victim of technological suspicion. Now, he is the accuser.

A Mirror to the Present

In hindsight, “Toiletgate” feels like a tragicomic foreshadowing of the digital-age cheating scandals that plague chess today.
The ingredients were all there: engine accusations, media leaks, divided fans, and the erosion of trust between elite players.
Only the technology has changed — from bathroom cables to Stockfish running on phones.

Today, Kramnik’s online crusade against alleged cheaters echoes the same paranoia that once surrounded him.
His critics note the irony; his supporters say it proves how deeply he cares about protecting the game’s purity.
But whether he’s accusing or being accused, one thing has remained constant: Vladimir Kramnik’s name is never far from the center of chess drama.

Epilogue: The Legacy of “Toiletgate”

The 2006 scandal reshaped the chess world’s understanding of integrity and privacy. It also exposed how fragile trust can be — even among world champions.
Kramnik went on to defend his title against Viswanathan Anand in 2008, eventually losing it but keeping his reputation intact. Topalov remained a top player but never escaped the shadow of “Toiletgate.”

Nearly twenty years later, the scandal has become part of chess folklore — a cautionary tale about how suspicion, technology, and human pride can nearly destroy the very game they seek to elevate.

And perhaps, as Kramnik looks around today’s chess scene — filled with new accusations, online witch hunts, and AI paranoia — he might see something uncomfortably familiar.

FAQs: The Toiletgate Scandal (Kramnik vs Topalov, 2006)

1. What was “Toiletgate” in chess?

“Toiletgate” refers to the controversy during the 2006 World Chess Championship match between Vladimir Kramnik and Veselin Topalov, when Topalov’s team accused Kramnik of cheating by using a computer during his frequent bathroom breaks.

2. Why was it called “Toiletgate”?

Because the accusations centered around Kramnik’s visits to the restroom — where he allegedly analyzed moves using a hidden computer. The name parodied the “Watergate” political scandal for its absurd yet serious nature.

3. Did investigators find any proof of cheating?

No. The FIDE Appeals Committee and match organizers found no evidence of cheating. Kramnik was cleared and eventually won the match 8.5–7.5 after a forfeit dispute.

4. What happened to the bathroom?

During the scandal, the organizers locked Kramnik’s private bathroom. Kramnik refused to continue the match until it was reopened. After heated negotiations, the match resumed — but tensions remained high.

5. How did the scandal affect Kramnik and Topalov afterward?

Their relationship soured permanently. Topalov’s manager continued to repeat the accusations in interviews for years. The two players avoided each other in tournaments whenever possible.

6. What’s the connection between “Toiletgate” and Kramnik today?

The scandal is often revisited because Kramnik, nearly 20 years later, has accused other players — including Daniel Naroditsky — of possible online cheating. Many chess fans now recall the irony that Kramnik himself was once the target of a similar accusation.

7. What’s FIDE’s stance on “Toiletgate”?

FIDE considers the case closed. It did, however, influence later anti-cheating protocols, such as limiting player movement, banning electronic devices, and installing cameras in restrooms and playing halls.