Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
Why? Both my sons are "experts". One is close to being a master.
I got both of them started but they passed me by.
Researching a Theory - Do you play chess
- Thread starter JowGaWolf
- Start date
I got both of them started but they passed me by.
chrispillertkd
Senior Master
I used to play chess a fair amount. Started up again maybe a year and a half again when I taught my son how to play. I've played a bit of Go (Baduk), too, though am not nearly as good at that.
Pax,
Chris
Pax,
Chris
Juany118
Senior Master
I love, and play, many strategy games. Chess, Risk, Diplomacy and learning Go for table games. Then we have Computer based games that widen the field even more. Some of them can be crazy. I remember one where it was true 360 X,Y and Z axis. If my brain isn't straining I am not having fun, even if I lose.
stonewall1350
Blue Belt
I do play. For sure. Not great. Not as much as I used too.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OP
OP
I was gathering some information because it's my belief that people fight the same way that they play chess.
Vajramusti
Master Black Belt
OP
OP
Well if my theory has some validity to it, then all you would have to do is to play chess with them and then you'll get an accurate idea of how they would fight. I wish I was a professional fighter because then I would just play chess with my opponent 3 months before the fight then I would know for sure that I could know my opponent by playing chess.
The other part of theory is that people who don't play strategic games are also the ones who have horrible fight plans that lack strategy.
The other part of theory is that people who don't play strategic games are also the ones who have horrible fight plans that lack strategy.
I'm not sure you'll find as much validity in the last part as with the first assertion. I'd be interested in finding out, though.
As for the chess approach, that's probably valid for me. I tended to play by feel, mostly quietly defensive until I saw an opening. I never went in with a specific approach in mind - no conscious strategy - but always tended toward the same combination of high-percentage moves and occasional sneakiness. When playing against a better player, I often frustrated them with my ability to defend late in the match to delay their win. I got several stalemates against players who soundly outplayed me early. I think much of that could be related to my approach in fighting.
OP
OP
I'm sure there will be some exceptions and if so then I wonder if those exceptions did or do some kind of non-fighting activity that involves creating a strategy.
I have 2 students that have difficulty with fighting strategies so I'm going to teach them chess starting with just the pawns and then I'll add other pieces. During this time I won't do any sparring with them so I guess we'll go about month without sparring class (a nightmare for me lol). Then I'll see if their fighting greatly improves. They have everything they need to be good at it except the strategy. If there is improvement then I'll try to determine if it's similar to how they play chess. I can do this by writing on a piece of paper before they spar, about what I think their approach will be, then I can let someone else see it, to verify it. After the student spars I can ask them what was their approach to attacking and defending. If I'm right then it should line up with what I observed during the chess game.
To be honest I'm at a point in my coaching where I have tried everything that I could think of to help these 2 students to develop fighting strategy. So I'm hoping this will help them to develop strategic thinking. At the way they going now they won't last long if someone went all out with an attack. Student 1 would try to over power, Student 2 would try to be over cautious and over think. My guess is that they will play chess like they fight.
I think a person has to know how to fight before he can think about anything concerning strategy.
I think a person has to know how to play chess before he can think about chess strategy as well. I don't mean just knowing the way the pieces move, or having played a bit here and there, I mean really knowing how to play.
I think the biggest difference between chess and fighting (strategy wise) is the taking of turns.
In fighting, the turns are often taken at the same time. If you're an elite striker, and more skilled than I am (I'm an elite striker as well) the most number of moves you can be ahead of me is one. If you're a decent grappler (I suck) you can be many moves ahead of me, far more than you'll ever need. But, and it's a big but, both scenarios can be changed by moving when your opponent moves. If you're the better striker, which takes all of one exchange to determine, I will move when you move, always, but never in the same way/direction, and, of course, be striking at the same time. Doing this causes the more elite striker to anticipate. Which can be taken advantage of.
In grappling, moving when the better grappler moves (not necessarily a scramble, just a reposition) usually causes him to adjust, to seek a more favorable position relative to you. It's not a strategy to win, just to put off the inevitable for a while longer. I'll put off the inevitable as long as I can. Sometimes I even learn from it.
In striking it's more of a sight thing, in grappling more of a feel thing. To me, anyway.
If chess consisted of both players moving at the same time - it's strategies would be different. And closer to fighting.
Just a thought.
I think a person has to know how to play chess before he can think about chess strategy as well. I don't mean just knowing the way the pieces move, or having played a bit here and there, I mean really knowing how to play.
I think the biggest difference between chess and fighting (strategy wise) is the taking of turns.
In fighting, the turns are often taken at the same time. If you're an elite striker, and more skilled than I am (I'm an elite striker as well) the most number of moves you can be ahead of me is one. If you're a decent grappler (I suck) you can be many moves ahead of me, far more than you'll ever need. But, and it's a big but, both scenarios can be changed by moving when your opponent moves. If you're the better striker, which takes all of one exchange to determine, I will move when you move, always, but never in the same way/direction, and, of course, be striking at the same time. Doing this causes the more elite striker to anticipate. Which can be taken advantage of.
In grappling, moving when the better grappler moves (not necessarily a scramble, just a reposition) usually causes him to adjust, to seek a more favorable position relative to you. It's not a strategy to win, just to put off the inevitable for a while longer. I'll put off the inevitable as long as I can. Sometimes I even learn from it.
In striking it's more of a sight thing, in grappling more of a feel thing. To me, anyway.
If chess consisted of both players moving at the same time - it's strategies would be different. And closer to fighting.
Just a thought.
Taking a sideways approach to teaching someone who isn't getting it is a good idea. I'd probably find something less intellectual than chess (I lack the patience to teach chess to beginners), but as long as you've identified some good analogies between chess strategy and an effective strategy for Jow Ga fighters, it seems like a good experiment.
OP
OP
Which is why I'll start teaching them with only the pawns at first. The goal will be to get the pawn to the other end of the board. When they become comfortable with using a pawn then I'll introduce another piece to the game. This way when the pawn get to the end, it's promoted to another piece. I'll have to keep it a secret that I'm trying to improve their fighting strategy through chess.
Maybe I can say that it's an exercise to help improve focus and to steady the mind.
I don't think it's necessary to keep it a secret. As long as you can make the link for them at regular intervals, them knowing what you're doing can give them something to think on. Mind you, I'm also not saying there's any functional reason why they need to know. I don't always tell students the point of an exercise or drill before they get partway into it and make the key mistake I know is coming and want to point out.
