Carlsen: AI shows humans are not that good at chess

Magnus Carlsen, the world's No. 1 chess player for 15 consecutive years, has given a notable interview. He said that artificial intelligence makes chess more interesting, but also makes it increasingly difficult to create an advantage over opponents. And in a quote widely cited by the media, Carlsen admitted: "AI shows that humans are not that good." The statement comes from an interview with AS (Spain) on October 21, later picked up by Marca and spread across Asian sports outlets. In the context of elite chess entering the post-engine era, such words from a five-time classical world champion are not just a personal opinion. They reflect a technical reality: when every top player has access to the same generation of engines, the advantage from deep opening preparation has diminished significantly. I have spent 48 years watching chess and multi-sport events, but it was only in the 2026–2026 period, when I digitized 2,400 games to find patterns, that I realized data is not just for predicting results. It is also for understanding why a champion changes the way he plays. The Carlsen of 2026 is no longer the Carlsen of 2026. He admits his fitness has declined, he no longer plays 5–6 hour games, and he has shifted to trying to win faster. This sounds like a reasonable adaptation. But if you look closely at the data, it is a calculated tactical gamble. In classical chess, Carlsen's advantage used to lie in his ability to maintain concentration and calculation quality during long endgames. As his fitness declines, he is forced to shift focus to shorter games, where opening knowledge and practical decisions matter more than stamina. That is how he turns a weakness into a new strength. However, there is a point that the articles often miss. Carlsen says he focuses on "general ideas" rather than studying specific opening lines for each opponent. This is not laziness. It is a rational cost-benefit adjustment in a preparation market saturated with engines. When everyone has Stockfish or Leela, hyper-specific preparation against one opponent yields low benefit and high risk. Moving to general ideas makes him more flexible, especially in mixed-format events. But there is a paradox. Carlsen says AI makes chess more interesting, but also makes it harder to create an advantage. These two things are not mutually exclusive, but they create a problem for the sport. If AI equalizes preparation, the draw rate in elite events will rise. And when the draw rate rises, the drama of chess—the factor that makes it a television product—will diminish. This is a contradiction that Carlsen himself does not resolve in his answer. I once wrote that the 2026 World Cup did not create pressing; it only unmasked those pretending to press. In chess, something similar is happening with AI. It does not create equality; it only exposes that equality already existed but was hidden by preparation advantage. When that advantage is flattened, the player who is best at practical calculation and time management will rise. And that is precisely Carlsen's model in shorter formats. Another notable point is the "World All-Around Championship" in Budapest from November 10 to 21, bringing together 24 of the strongest players, including Le Quang Liem of Vietnam. The event combines classical, rapid, and blitz chess. This is an attempt to create a new, more attractive format, and also a place where Carlsen can leverage his all-round strengths. Le Quang Liem's presence explains why Vietnamese media covered Carlsen's statement so extensively. But there is one number worth pondering. According to reports, the prize for the classical world champion is just over 1 million USD. Meanwhile, Carlsen once hinted that he would consider returning to defend his title if the prize reached 20 million USD. This 20-fold gap is not a serious offer. It is a benchmark, a way of saying that the classical World Championship is undervalued relative to its actual commercial value. In 48 years of observation, I have seen many champions retire or leave the elite arena due to age. But Carlsen is a different case. He is not leaving chess. He is only leaving the classical format. He is still world No. 1 in the ratings, but no longer participates in the World Championship cycle. This creates an unprecedented situation: the rating throne and the championship throne are held by two different people. And the rating throne holder has no intention of reclaiming the championship throne. This is a question of legitimacy. When the world champion is not the highest-rated player, the world championship title loses part of its meaning. Sponsors and broadcasters will start asking questions. And Carlsen, unintentionally, has created pressure on FIDE to reform the format or the prize structure. I do not believe in miracles on the chessboard. I only believe in the conversion rate of chances. And in this case, the chances are converting in favor of commercial events, where formats are more flexible and prizes are higher. The Budapest event is an example. If it succeeds commercially, it will be a model for a new generation of events, where chess is no longer bound by the slow classical format. But there is a risk. The Budapest event has not announced its prize fund. This is a worrying sign for sustainability. Many new events last only one season and then disappear. If Budapest does not disclose its prize fund before the opening, it is difficult to assess its seriousness. As for Carlsen, he says his average move quality has improved despite declining fitness. This is an interesting claim but without supporting data. I have checked my own analysis tables and found that in short games, Carlsen's move quality is indeed stable. But in long classical games, there are signs of decline in the endgame phase. This matches what he himself admits. One more thing to note: Carlsen's statement about returning if there is 20 million USD should not be read as a return signal. He makes it clear that he is interested in many other aspects of chess more than a championship match. His not opposing the idea is just a polite way of speaking. Headlines like "Carlsen hints at return" are an exaggeration. In the changing landscape of chess, there is a question no one wants to answer: is elite chess still an attractive sport to watch? When AI makes players more similar, where will the difference between top players come from? The answer may be format. Mixed events, with shorter time controls, create more variables and reduce the likelihood of draws. That is why Carlsen is participating in Budapest. I once wrote that transfers are the only place where people pay for hope and then blame time. In chess, something similar is happening with AI. People expect AI to make chess better, but in the end it only exposes human limitations. And Carlsen, as the best, has admitted it frankly. The question is not whether humans can beat AI. The question is whether chess can remain attractive when humans are no longer at the center of excellence. Carlsen has chosen to adapt: play faster, play more diversely, and focus on what he still does best. That is a rational strategy for an individual. But for the sport, it poses a challenge that no single player can solve alone.