Meet the New Chess Boxing Champion of the World 235
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."
Battle Chess Nostalgia (Score:5, Interesting)
Actually, this may not be as idiotic as it sounds. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:I'd put money on the boxer any day (Score:5, Interesting)
I thought the same thing, and figured they must have rules against this type of play.
But then couldn't a boxer like Mike Tyson immediately win the world champion title in the second round of the fight?
No, the WCBO's statutes foresee a minimum ELO ranking of 1800 in chess. Each competitor has to fulfil this minimum standard in order to participate in an official chessboxing fight. Someone like Mike Tyson would need years of training to reach this standard...
In addition, there's also the zugzwang rule. When a chessboxer doesn't make a move and the referee has good reason to believe that he or she is doing this deliberately, a warning is issued. When the chessboxer still fails to make a move, a second warning is issued whereupon he or she is forced to make a move. If no move is made upon the second warning, the player is immediately disqualified.
Fucking Awesome (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Article Logo (Score:3, Interesting)
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!
Re:I'd put money on the boxer any day (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:I'd put money on the boxer any day (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Actually, this may not be as idiotic as it soun (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Actually, this may not be as idiotic as it soun (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Actually, this may not be as idiotic as it soun (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:Actually, this may not be as idiotic as it soun (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever hea (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever hea (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever hea (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:That is the most ridiculous thing I've ever hea (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Who is tougher? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.