Review of Netflix’s Queen of Chess

The chess world was eagerly awaiting the February 6 premiere of Queen of Chess. After the success of the series The Queen’s Gambit, Netflix has once again turned to chess, this time with a documentary.

Like thousands of viewers around the world, many of them chess players and others not, I sat down that very day in front of the television together with my family. For an hour and a half we enjoyed a high-quality production, as one would expect from Netflix. Not only will newcomers to chess discover many new things, but chess players themselves, even if they already know Judit’s story, will learn a great deal about her life, her environment, and the challenges she had to face.

On the other hand, there were some aspects that did not convince me, sometimes because certain topics were treated too extensively and sometimes because important issues were not addressed.

So I am going to summarize what I consider the best and the worst elements of this documentary, making it clear that I enjoyed it and that I am very pleased it was made. On a scale from 1 to 10, I would give it an average rating of 7.

COME ON‼ I am super excited!🤗#QueenOfChess, Rory Kennedy’s new #documentary about my story is available on @netflix ‼
👇 Movie link in the comments - or check the Bio 👆#ChessConnectsUs #TrueStories #IndieFilm #MoxiePictures #Honored #HumanStory #Socialimpact… pic.twitter.com/UqkDF6Zxsc

— Judit Polgar (@GMJuditPolgar) February 6, 2026

THE BEST

1. Chess is once again in the spotlight. I believe this is one of the best pieces of news for the world of the 64 squares. Hopefully this documentary will achieve an impact similar to that of The Queen’s Gambit. For the chess world, the mere fact that Netflix is making chess the focus of new productions is great news. Our game is an attractive element on screen, not only visually but also symbolically and psychologically. Chess players like the pieces and the board, the clocks, and, in general, the elements of the game. The rest of the world does as well.
2. Chess is presented in a very dignified way, as an example of intellectual and sporting activity. Chess is once again placed in a very high position.
3. Gender prejudice in the chess world is a key element in the documentary, and it is presented in a balanced manner. Avoiding the subject would have been a major historical injustice and something entirely inappropriate for our time. Focusing exclusively on that issue and turning it into the main theme would have made this work something completely different.
4. The documentary is full of rhythm, skillfully interweaving images from personal videos, clips from television programs, photographs from the period, press clippings, statements from the Polgar family, and opinions from figures in the chess world. The hour and a half of the documentary goes by very quickly.
5. Chess players are accustomed to watching films, documentaries, or series in which the details that only we notice have been neglected. Nothing of the sort appears here. The scenes filmed over a chessboard, showing hands moving the pieces as if they were the real images of the game, display movements that are natural for a chess player. We already know how we are: we can tell whether someone plays chess simply by seeing how that person holds a piece, just as a tennis player can sense someone’s skill from the way that person holds a racket.

THE WORST

1. The prominence that Kasparov is given in the documentary seems excessive to me. Of course, it is a success and a privilege to have him involved, to listen to him, and to learn details about the rivalry between them, but at times it gives the impression that Judit’s story revolves around the then world champion.
2. Just as I find the importance given to Kasparov excessive, I also believe that many fundamental aspects of the story are left aside. It does not seem reasonable to me that there is no mention of the first time Judit represented Hungary in an open Olympiad, where she was the only woman (Thessaloniki, 1988). That moment deserved very special emphasis. Bobby Fischer’s relationship with the Polgar family is not treated with the depth it deserves, and Fischer appears only through those famous and unfortunate sexist remarks he made on television, which are shown twice in the documentary. One also misses a little more history about family life during her childhood and her relationship with her sisters, both then and now, as well as her relationship with other players of her time.
3. I also find it a mistake that the famous friendly game in which Judit Polgar defeated Magnus Carlsen is neither mentioned nor shown, even though it took place long after her retirement (in 2022) in Madrid’s Retiro Park. It is a historic moment that deserved to be highlighted. It could even have served as a fitting ending to the story.
4. I was delighted to see that Anna Rudolf, Jovanka Houska, and Maurice Ashley took part, all of them great ambassadors of our game wherever they go. However, I have the feeling that their participation was somewhat underused. In most cases, the final editing integrates them with commentary that merely reinforces what is already being shown, instead of drawing on the contributions they could surely have made about the chess world, the player’s mindset, or the competitive experience.

If you have watched the documentary, please leave a comment with your opinion.