Slashdot Mirror
Meet the New Chess Boxing Champion of the World
Attila Dimedici writes "A Russian man has just been crowned world champion in the sport of chess boxing. Apparently the idea originated in a French comic strip from the early '90s. In 2003 a Dutch artist decided to bring the 'sport' to life. The 'sport' is played by starting a chess match in the middle of a boxing ring. After four minutes, the chess board is cleared and the opponents box for three minutes. A match consists of six rounds of chess and five rounds of boxing. A match is decided by knockout, checkmate, or points."
and I can't wait to watch it.
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Hmmm....
I have come up with a new sport come April
Tax-Sex
You sit in the middle of the Kitchen and agonize over deductions for 10 minutes, then do it doggy style on them thar reciepts.
Never play chicken with a passive aggressive.
Wouldn't this heavily favour brawn over brains? I mean any half decent bruiser could just avoid getting checkmated right away and then knock the nerd out in the first round.
I have seen the future of sports and it says 'I took a lot of body-blows in the fourth round and that affected my concentration. That's why I made a big mistake in the fifth round: I did not see him coming for my king,'
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
He goes head-to-head against the world champion of Kung-fu Go.
Yeah, we have something like that at my company called codeboxing.
Developers receive documentation and go off to work on something. The moment they run into an ambiguous or poorly defined requirement, they jump into the ring with the person who wrote it for up to 6 rounds of boxing. Between rounds, they refine the language of the requirement. The match is decided by a panel of managers, agreement between the two parties, or knock out.
M
I was rather hoping for a BattleChess like game where the players box it out to decide which piece captures which. This just sounds ... weird.
Once I started RTFAing the repeated comments about concentration and ability to shift modes starting getting my attention. Modern pentathalon started out as a way to simulate certain kinds of combat, and, for its time, made quite a bit of sense. I'm willing to bet that we'll see some very serious people start to get into this as a way to hone skills used for activities that aren't cheesy at all. A way to test one's ability to think strategically and tactically while out of breath and in pain is a damn good thing for anybody who is expected to function in combat. Even first responders in non-violent professions might gain from this.
Gotta say, not for me, to say the least, but I'll be very curious to see how this evolves and what kinds of people end up getting into it.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.
I m a big fan of the trilogy (actually i m a big fan of the author), but it's kind of weird to think that chess-boxing is now real, given that in the book it is mainly used to show the violence of the distopian world.
There is also a hockey game in the first book which ends with something like 3 goals and 5 kills for each team.
BTW : In the book, the chess-boxing match ends with the main protagonist (possessed by a god) killing his opponent with some kind of laser shot from his eyes during a chess round.
I want to see No Holds Barred Halo Boxing. Then I get to beat the crap out of the guy who thinks hes so cool with the sniper rifle.
Let's see you pwn me now!
Seriously though, this is really awesome. I have never really been into boxing or UFC, but if that dude also had to beat the guy at Chess or some other game of skill, then that makes it very very interesting.
Not just brute force.
I can see some little nerd being undefeated in the ring since he could never lose the match within 4 minutes... but going to the hospital the day he does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing
a sample of the original comics series: http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/archive/freerpgs/heritage/mobworld.htm#Chess%20Boxing
Herve S.
They can't televise it!
The First Rule of Chess Club is You Do Not Talk about Chess Club!
Whats up with the news.com.au logo next to the article: http://images.slashdot.org/articles/08/07/07/0427228-1-thumb.png?
Is this some new way of cashing in by directing links to websites?
1. Sign advertising agreement with other news website
2. Post article to idle.slashdot.org (?????)
3. Profit!
I don't think it's ridiculous at all. Anyone trained in any martial art (not just eastern, count boxing, fencing, etc. as well) will probably agree.
Keeping your senses and your ability to think during a fight is anything but trivial, and requires a lot of training.
Most regular people would probably have trouble just remembering how the pieces move after a few minutes of fighting, with all the adrenaline pumping and your whole body in "I have no time for thinking" mode.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
It's stated that there are 6 rounds of chess with 4 minutes per round. That works out to more than 20 minutes of chess, not "1 - 5 minutes to win."
I've played competitive Lightning (5 mins) and Speed (15 mins) chess before. Ample time to win a game in both modes.
Most difficult part here is probably trying to remember your plan after the boxing.
FYI to anyone who hasn't read it: the trilogy is good science fiction. Bilal's art is easily among the most memorable in comics, but I like his writing as well -- a rich, ironic feast.
The funny thing about this sports is that a champion is bound to loose its title quickly, the more the champion boxe, the worst he must be getting at chess. Since after a year or two having your face punched turn your brain into molasses...
There's also the movie Immortel (ad vitam), also written and directed by Bilal himself, roughly based on the same story as the Nikopol trilogy.
And Benoit Sokal's Whit Birds Productions have a point'n'click adventure game called Nikopol, based on this series in their pipeline.
"Sufficiently advanced satire is indistinguishable from reality." - [Tips: 1DrYakQDKCQ6y52z6QbnkxHXAocMZJE61o ]
Sort of. 20 some odd years ago my room mate considered combining rugby and chess and called it "full contact chess".
We played beer chess instead. Somebody had a 4'x4' chess board. Pawns were Mickey's, rooks were Fosters, queens were a bottle of wine etc. Every time a chess piece was taken you had to drink it. We rarely lost; against the beer drinker types we just out played them, against the chess player types we'd trade down pieces early and out drink them.
Simpler times ...
Belthize
Looking at the pentathlon, it seems interesting, but kind of a downer that they put shooting, and fencing as the first two events. I am of course assuming that they listed the events in the order in which they are usually done. It would be much more challenging to try and steady a gun after running and biking, than at the beginning of the competition. Which is why I find the biathlon kind of interesting. I have enough trouble aiming a gun that accurately (although I've only ever shot pellet guns, which are notorious for bad aim). I can't imagine having good aim after cross country skiing for any length of time.
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
It's not as hard as you would think. You can't hold a rifle pointed at a target anyways, no one can. You hold it so it traces a predictable pattern that intersects your target, then time your squeeze so everything comes together. Personally, my muscles tend to move my sight in a squashed figure 8 pattern. When you're tired and out of breath, the pattern will get larger, but it will remain the same shape, and be just as predictable.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I don't think it's ridiculous at all. Anyone trained in any martial art (not just eastern, count boxing, fencing, etc. as well) will probably agree.
Keeping your senses and your ability to think during a fight is anything but trivial, and requires a lot of training.
Most regular people would probably have trouble just remembering how the pieces move after a few minutes of fighting, with all the adrenaline pumping and your whole body in "I have no time for thinking" mode.
Perhaps ironically for a geek, I don't know what it's like to be good at chess, but I do know what it's like to be good at fighting.
A lot of intelligent people aren't good at fighting because they overanalyze a fight. It's helpful to watch other people fight and analyze, but in a fight you have to be in the moment. I knew an architect who was very physically powerful, but never able to fight well because he tried to think strategically during a fight. He was always thinking, if I do this, then he'll do that, then I'll do this etc. A cunning fighter is one who reacts in the moment, in a way that is both appropriate and unpredictable.
"Thinking" in a fight -- if it can be called that -- is not sequential, nor is it analytical. It's more wholistic and intuitive. Even a swift reasoner cannot project future scenarios fast enough to keep up with the present, and being in the moment is critical. The reason the average person can't remember the details of a fight is that he isn't paying attention. He's thinking about the past ("that punch hurt") or the future ("I'm going to get murdered.") An experienced fighter is aware of every detail without being stuck on any one.
Although I can't say from experience, I wonder if this means being good at chess isn't a little like being good at sparring. My faults as a chess player are like the faults of my architect friend as a fighter; although I have formidable analytical skills, they aren't a match for somebody who moves with the swift assurance of being familiar with the scenario. I spend too much time dealing with the shambles of my "strategy" to take advantage of the opportunities my opponent's moves create.
As far as silliness is concerned, all sports are silly if you look at them the right way. Chess and barehand fighting are individual sports pared down to the minimally interesting essentials: two individuals striving to gain advantage over each other. Perhaps arm wresting is more basic, but not sufficiently complex to invite tactical analysis.
In any case, Chess Boxing is clearly a sport tailor made for Russia.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
You could be the dumbest poster I've ever seen.
Spoken like someone who has never actually been trained to fight. Just so I'm clear, learning how to position oneself, move around your opponent, and use reach and speed considerations to determine the correct time to strike for maximum effect is not "practical... in warfare or self-defense."? Is that correct?
Because THAT is what boxing is, your portrayal of it as just "throwing a punch" is ignorant, and makes it clear why your post is so ridiculous, you simply have no idea what you're talking about.
Here is a list of posters who should be ignored when discussing this subject
neuromancer23 (1122449)
They can't televise it!
The First Rule of Chess Club is You Do Not Talk about Chess Club!
Oddly enough, The First Rule of Date Club is also You Do Not Talk About Chess Club.
Trying to time your squeeze is part of the problem. It is the wrong approach and certainly not the one taught in the military or police forces.
Aim, breathe steady, keep aiming, exhale while aiming, gently squeeze the trigger. The exact moment of the loud bang should be a surprise.
That's just plain ridiculous to think that a punch or a kick cannot be used to defend yourself.
A punch, kick, eye gab, or even a sword has a practical defensive application given the right circumstances.
At least a boxer isn't shit out of luck if he leaves his pepper spray at home by accident.
That is best, but you don't always have the leisure to pick your shots from a position of rest. When you're doing sprint drills across a field with an assault rifle in your hands and you have no chance to catch your breath before taking your shot and continuing to sprint, you need alternative techniques that will accommodate the physical condition you're in.
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
I have 2 years of training at a Rickson Gracie academy, and I guarantee you punching is something you do in a fight. I'm also an amateur cage fighter, where they let you do so many things that they explain the rules entirely in the things you are not allowed to do. Punching works. It's part of a toolset. A great Jitz guy without any wrestling is gonna get destroyed by a man who can sprawl and box.
Think Rani Yahya vs. Kid Yamamoto, or for more proof go back and watch Jeremy Horn's second fight with Chuck Liddell. You need the whole game against good fighters, and punching power and size will win the fight just about every time against someone with poor wrestling.
My fellow Americans, let's restore the death penalty for child rapists. Let's do it . . . for the children.
I think we're thinking of different studies. I found the link to mine (an interesting read, but hardly scientific gospel): http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-expert-mind
It seems I remembered a select portion of the article; it describes a study which used chess as a study to find how expertise in a field in dependent upon training. By repeated exposure to situations and, sometimes, a knowledge of background theory, more information is available from the same data because more detailed extrapolation is possible.
Similarly, by training in a fighting art/sport, more opportunities present themselves when faced with an opponent than those obvious to a beginner. The mental process in each case appears similar to me; a rapid and correct (or at least useful) analysis of the situation results from the ability gained in practise. The main difference in sparring is that a substantial portion of time has to be spent making the body capable of reliably doing what you're asking it to do.
For reference, both my sparring and my chess are mediocre.
Well I was once competing pretty seriously in martial artist and chess tournaments (During the same several years oddly enough) I think there is more commonality to the approach than you would expect. (Ignoring the fact that I would have loved to lay the smack down on a few of my more obnoxious chess opponents)
In both chess and martial arts you memorize a large number of moves and counters and execute the basic opening with no need for thought. My favorite chess opening I had anywhere from the first 12 to 24 moves already prepared and requiring no time or thought on my behalf. If an opponent used a very unusual counter my routine could be derailed but my competitor would be in a disadvantageous position as most counters I hadn't studied in chess had significant disadvantages to them.
Now martial arts is different in that the sheer volume of possible moves is larger and there is a HUGE advantage to having a move or counter that the opponent has never seen before. But in a tightly regulated matches like fencing or Olympic Tae Kwon Do the number of legal moves are limited and top competitor have seen most techniques before. In these settings participants are planning half a dozen moves deep and doing the basic attacks and counters on autopilot.
I know some serious fencers and I have fought against them in informal settings. One comment that stuck with me was one friend told me he felt I planned 2-3 moves in advance. (This is a VERY serious fencer, trains swordsmen, does NERO, almost qualified for olympics) He said he is usually thinking closer to 6 moves deep so he can always force me into the position he wants except when I managed something unexpected (usually some marital arts trick that I could never do in regulation fencing) and honestly I only manage that a few times before running out of tricks he has not seen before. (He now beats me pretty consistently)
I do agree that you don't want to be thinking out new moves or counters DURING combat, but you any your opponent have mostly the same library of moves you do think deeply during combat, it is just that while you are doing feint, parry, riposte on autopilot your brain is thinking about "ok the next time he extends like that I step in close and trap his arm, etc.
Execution is really different but the basic idea of move vs counter while watching for weaknesses is common to most tournament sports.
I believe the study you are referencing is actually discussing a different phenomenon. (I.e. The fact that some chess grandmasters can play many simultaneous matches based on glancing at the board as they walk playing many different opponents.
Basically they learn to rapidly recognize opportunities that average chess players might miss. However if you put a couple good players in the crowd you easily beat the grandmaster by forcing them into a early bizarre gambit and playing off of them being distracted. (I have beaten a grandmaster this way, and he would have totally trashed me in a fair match)
I used to play tournament chess and I won off my ability to plan farther in the future than my opponents. I would say that most chess masters do this too.
Quick snap judgments are a side benefit of having played thousands of hours of chess. (Main downside being that you had to spend thousands of hours playing chess when you could have instead have been getting laid, a situation very simular to becoming an expert in computers I would think.)
An expert can recognize and discard more situations than a novice, which helps the expert think farther into the future since they are not wasting time on less viable moves, but I can state that an expert DEFINITELY thinks more steps forward than an average player. Now if you change average player to average grandmaster and expert to be top grandmaster then yes, I would agree that most grandmasters may think roughly the same distance into the future. But no way does the average player get close to a grandmaster on moves ahead.
It is like saying the average coder can think of as much code as an expert coder, an expert coder can almost think out an entire architecture, an average coder is lucky to finish a method. Hell, most interviewees I see can't compile a class in their head and tell me all the compile errors in a class. They catch the first few issues but they don't get the more complex issues that an expert woudl catch. Same is true in chess.
But punch strength doesn't determine most fights. A lot of fights are over before the first punch is thrown. And boxers learn one vitally important thing: To take a hit and go on.
I (remotely) know a guy who used to do professional boxing. He's in his 40s now. Some time recently a gang of early 20s made some rude comments about his wife on the street. He was in the middle of them and had the "lead" guy by the shirt before they were quite done. He had no fear and made it clear that if they wanted a fight, single or all at once, they could have it, right there and then. They backed off.
And that's something you learn in all fighting, whether it's sports, martial arts or self defense: To control your fear. And fear decides more fights than punches do.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
A gun is also extremely unlikely to kill by accident. A few hundred people - 600 in 2000 die in gun accidents each year (and many of these are actually suicides that are covered up out of respect for grieving families); in that same year, 3,900 people drowned, 3,600 were killed by fire, 3,400 choked to death, and a whopping 16,200 died in falls. Your staircase or your swimming pool are much more likely to kill you accidentally than your gun.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
In my experience, I would say that a disproportionate percentage of the people I've known who played chess avidly were bright guys from less educated backgrounds who simply weren't aware of as wide a range of intellectually stimulating activities as the average person I've known with their level of smarts. This has led them *both* to the military *and* chess. In my experience the two are positively correlated, especially in the people I met through working in corporate IT. The same tendency to turn to authority for answers has given them a motivation to take both of them on.
Chess is something that every kid in America has not only heard of but has been told is "one of those things that smart people do". And it's competitive as hell, has clear, unambiguous rules, and an equally clear, unambiguous winner at the end. It appeals to somebody who wants to do things where you work hard, focus, do what you've been trained to do, and WIN. Just like what they've been told military service is like. Not only that, it's cheap to learn and do and is replete with rituals that appeal to those seeking that sort of identity of clearly measurable "excellence".
Of course, there are also the artifacts based on things like, say, being from Russia. But those are fading over time.
So, no, I counter your snark and raise you demographics. May the best player win.
It's all about the information. And what we do with it.