Chess legend Magnus Carlsen has never been one to mince words—and his latest target is Formula 1. The five-time World Chess Champion sparked controversy during the Norway Chess 2025 press conference, declaring F1 "the most boring sport imaginable" just hours after defeating reigning chess world champion Gukesh Dommaraju. Carlsen's blunt critique, comparing Grand Prix racing to "driving around in a circle for a long time," has ignited fierce backlash from motorsport fans and reignited debates about what truly makes a sport exciting.
Magnus Carlsen’s scathing assessment
Fresh off his strategic masterclass against Gukesh, Carlsen doubled down on his disdain for Formula 1 during a post-match presser.
"The start is exhilarating for the pure power of the cars," he conceded, "but after that, very little happens. It’s quite long-winded, and most people don’t really follow what’s going on."
The Norwegian grandmaster argued that F1’s popularity stems more from manufactured drama than sporting merit:
"People watch it because of personalities and marketing, right? There are very few things [in F1] that, in themselves, engage fans like other sports."
His comments came just days after the Monaco GP, widely criticized for its lack of overtaking despite new two-stop rules aimed at spicing up the action.
F1’s identity crisis: Sport or soap opera?
Magnus Carlsen’s critique taps into a growing divide among motorsport purists:
The Spectacle Argument: F1’s global appeal leans heavily on driver rivalries (Verstappen vs. Hamilton), Netflix’s Drive to Survive, and glamorous locales like Monaco.
The Racing Reality: Processional events like Monaco—where this year’s race featured just one on-track pass—fuel claims that F1 prioritizes show over substance.
Even F1 insiders acknowledge the issue. Sky Sports’ Martin Brundle dissected Monaco’s failed two-stop experiment, noting teams exploited loopholes by using "sacrificial lamb" drivers to manipulate pit gaps. "It was frustrating for viewers," Brundle admitted.
Chess vs. F1: A clash of tempos
Carlsen’s dismissal highlights contrasting appeals:
Chess Formula 1
Silent, cerebral battles Deafening, sensory overload
Turn-based tension Real-time split-second decisions
Pure skill, no machinery Engineering + driver synergy
The chess star’s preference for "voluntary entertainment" (like his own spontaneous streaming) over F1’s scripted narratives underscores a broader cultural rift.
"I get bored during games sometimes. That’s why I leave," he quipped, referencing his habit of wandering mid-tournament.
The Irony: Parallels Between Chess and F1
Both disciplines share surprising similarities Magnus Carlsen overlooked:
Strategic Depth: F1’s tire management and pit stops mirror chess’ endgame calculations.
Tech Arms Race: Just as F1 teams chase aerodynamic edges, chess engines revolutionize preparation.
Mental Stamina: Drivers face G-forces; grandmasters endure 7-hour classical marathons.
Perhaps, as Reddit users mused, "Magnus would respect F1 more if drivers had to solve chess puzzles during pit stops."
Is Carlsen right—or just trolling?
The chess champ’s comments may be less about F1 and more about his disdain for predictability. After all, this is the man who quit classical chess calling it "too rigid." His critique reflects a craving for sports that reward improvisation—whether in chess’ speed formats or F1’s rain-soaked chaos.
For now, F1’s response is clear: Monaco’s two-stop flop proves changes are needed. But as Magnus Carlsen might say, "Good luck making left turns exciting."