Chess and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu

http://creativeexercise.com/content/view/4/15/

When I first wrote that article I had been playing correspondance on letsplaychess.com (which is why that rating is mentioned in the essay instead of the one I have on here) - I'm 2004 on here with a problem solving rating of 2500+ (I got as high as 2650).

If you don't want to visit the website I copy/pasted the article below:

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whilst thinking about this article I discovered that any form of combat is simply a different expression of exactly the same thing. This holds true whether it is expressed mentally or physically. I could (and in the future might) write similar comparisons with any other combat sport. For now the two are BJJ and Chess.

1)      There is an opening, a middle game and an endgame: In an evenly fought match between two tough competitors you are likely to see all three of these phases. A small advantage from the opening might be increased or converted in the middle game with the killing stroke in the end game. Sometimes a player can win in the opening or middle game due to their brilliance and aggression. There has been many a time when the world chess champion’s preparations have been so complete that victory was known in the first few moments. I am sure there are points in Xande Ribeiro’s career where he achieved a tap out in the first minute because his opponent couldn’t handle his opening preparations.

2)      You can only attack from an advantageous position: The first world champion of chess – Wilhelm Stienitz, formulated this rule and it holds as true today as it did then. The reason is simple: If you are playing a game where everything is known (not with any luck like in backgammon) then if you have no advantage in an area, your attacking forces wont be enough to overcome the defensive resources. In BJJ there is also a phrase – “Position, THEN submission”, and the reasons are the same; to be able to execute a move against a resisting opponent of comparable skill you need leverage etc.

3)      Space is a good thing to “own”. In chess if you have more space that means that your pieces are freer to move around, they communicate better, and your options are more varied and fruitful. In BJJ, if you control the space your opponent occupies, you are in a better position to attack or improve your positioning. Whenever someone has obtained mount or side control, what is the first thing that you’re supposed to do? Create space so that you can begin your escape.

4)      Initiative. The initiative in chess is when the opponent is forced to respond to real threats. The effect this has is that one side is better able to dictate the action and hence might obtain some long term benefit from this. I say “might” because the initiative is a transient advantage; the opponent might find some way to stabilize and nullify the initiative. The great attacking players always have a wonderful sense of initiative and will try not to let it go without the opponent shedding some blood. In BJJ the initiative refers to those periods when one fighter is causing the other fighter to react to his movement. The person with the initiative of course has to be careful because of the transient nature of this particular advantage – his adversary might reestablish guard or something similar, nullifying the initiative and bringing everything back to square one. The best attacking BJJ players have always shown an amazing ability to hold onto the initiative, not letting it go without the opponent paying some dear price.

5)      Think in combinations. As a beginning chess player it is common to simply attack a piece and hope the opponent doesn’t see it. As you get more familiar with the game and practice against much stronger opposition you soon learn that this isn’t a fruitful approach and you have to looks several moves ahead, attempting to force your opponent into only move situations. As a beginner in BJJ, it is common to simply try to grab the arm of an opponent (for example) and attempt an armlock. Of course this approach doesn’t work on higher rated opponents, and you soon learn that there has to be some sort of set up for these attacks to become effective. Eventually, you are stringing attacks together in an attempt to force the initiative, and then the finish.

6)      Attention to detail. One of the things that will strike you most strongly studying the chess games of the great masters is the attention to detail. Some meticulous attack is only possible because of a precautionary move played 20 moves ago. The grandmaster understanding that for everything to be truly successful against a resisting opponent, they can leave no space to breathe. In BJJ, you might be able to execute a move against a novice without good technique – but again, once you reach a little higher you discover that positioning your arm a little to the left, or grabbing your leg a little deeper etc. is what is needed to finish successfully.

7)      To become really good, you must build a very stable foundation. An obvious sentiment, but one that is consistently forgotten in both circles. In chess, it is necessary to really become familiar with the basic goals and strategies of the opening and understanding the strategic details of some common opening sequences. A common problem amongst beginning chess players is to get caught up in memorizing a “devastating” opening by rote memorization.

This might provide them with some success against low level opponents who don’t know any better, but as soon as someone deviates from what he expects his position will quickly deteriorate.

In Brazilian Jiu Jitsu you really need to understand the basic movements, escapes, submissions etc. before exploring the latest in x-guard theory or whatever may happen to be the flavor of the month.

The inspiration for these divergences from proper learning are the same as well. Some very high level player has achieved great success with their unorthodox and unexpected attacks and people interested in a quick fix try to emulate them. What they forget, is that no matter how unorthodox these players are at that high level, they are profound masters of basics and fundamentals.

There are no other martial artists on here?

Just ran across this via a google search for "jiu jitsu chess set"- I'm a BJJ blue belt and I've only been on chess.com a few months, but I was thinking that SOMEONE had to create some kind of BJJ chess set out there, since the two are compared so often. Great article, and if you ever see a BJJ chess set, let me know!!

I've always thought that any kind of submission grappling or wrestling was very similar to chess. Although in these kinds of martial arts you have to have a very sharp mind AND be fairly athletic.

By the way, I like your comparison of some of the strange 10th Planet techniques to unorthodox chess openings/styles.

Why do they call it Brazilian Jiu Jitsu?  Why not give it another name?  Also, what are the differences?

Having studied both, I can say that the comparisions are complete rubbish. 

The main problem with such compliled lists like these is that either they are so generalised they are unhelpful (consider comparision #1:- BJJ and Chess both have a "begining, middle and end" ... well fuck me! that is so incredabily insightful...maybe I should start a list comparing the life and work of adolf hitler, with a tea-towel.) or they stretch the truth to make the point so far that it becomes false (consider comparision #2: In BJJ it is quite easy to win from full guard with a submission, to use chess parlence, this would be "attacking from an infererior position" but how does this make sense [in chess] given Steinz's rule?)

A blitz game is a lot like fighting or fencing. A long game is more like wrestling. 

A sabre match would be the equivalent to bullet chess.  Haha...

How the hell is full guard an inferior position?

Is this a seroius question?

It is a inferior position because the guy on top of you generally has better chances (particually in MMA rules): they can punch you (with some power) and you cannot, they can slam and you cannot [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhB1lO80E-E], should you make an error in your defence it is likely that you will suffer (i.e if they pass the legs they can land straight into a scarfhold [hon-kesa-gatame]) and you cannot make a quick escape (a self-defence principle)

compare this to a superior position, the full mount:

because they have no control over your body you can get up and run away, you can punch with a great deal of force, there are more submissions availible to you than them (e.g they cannot go for armbars, you can), and if you make a defensive error you are more likely to land in a favourable position [compared with a mistake made in full-guard]. 

In chess too it is possible to win from a defensive position isn't it ? It appears more difficult but some people like to play defensively. Think of openings like the Modern Defence where the Black invites the White to create a big center and play aggressively hoping that they will overextend.

But in chess, a defensive position is not necessarily a infererior one (I might have to spend the next 5 moves defending my king from your incorrect rook sacrifice... and reference to the hyper-modern openings only proves my point: the KID is played because, despite its defensive nature, it leads to equality. GM's would not play it otherwise.)

In anycase, this track of thought merely demonstrates the mental gymnastics and hoops you have to jump over in order to make a half-decent comparision.

At the end of the day, you can compare almost anything to anything (given the new film, references to ravens and writing desks is most fitting). BJJ is a lot like Business, a lot like Judo, a lot like apple crumble, and (lest we forget!) a lot like chess.

"But in chess, a defensive position is not necessarily a infererior one "

At no point did I ever indicate that a defensive position is necessarily an inferior one.

So far those voicing objections are voicing only objections with their misunderstanding of the analogy, and their lack of understanding in either sport.

Specifically I stated that one cannot attack from an inferior position. If you have someone in your guard but - you have BROKEN their posture then the position of the guy on the bottom has an ADVANTAGE which he can then convert into an armbar, sweep or triangle.

Likewise, if the guy on the top can stabilize his position, exploit weaknesses and break the guard of the guy on the bottom only THEN will he be able to move to an advantageous position like passing the persons guard.

Now this might all seem like a banal observation, but there is a lot of information on first principles of you actually study both sports. What does it tell you? That you first need to probe for a weakness in a position before attacking.

That it would be incorrect to attempt a sweep or submission from your guard until you have broken your opponent's posture. That it would be silly to attempt to choke someone while in their guard because you haven't yet broken the guard-player's posture etc etc.

If I give a FALSE attack my opponent will be on the defensive only briefly. However - analysis clearly shows that the attack has no substance, without substance there is no strength, without strength... you don't have the necessary advantage to attack. So it is clear that the above case again is just a simple illustration of the principles I had laid out above.

I will be doing an update on this post to flush out further details - but so far the objections seem to be from people who little understand chess or bjj. I also have to update a few other details as I've improved a bit at chess, and I am currently a brown belt under Saulo Ribeiro (promoted by one of his black belts Jorge Britto)

"or they stretch the truth to make the point so far that it becomes false (consider comparision #2: In BJJ it is quite easy to win from full guard with a submission, to use chess parlence, this would be "attacking from an infererior position""

Wow. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of BJJ.

The guard in and of itself isn't advantageous or advantageous. It is neither superior or inferior - it depends on the context. What will make the position advantageous or otherwise would be whether or not one person is able to break another person's posture. Some guys are really good guard players, and being in their guard would not be considered an advantage for most people. 

If I have full posture in someone's guard the position is almost even with a slight advantage for the person on top. However, to be able to do anything I have to move and prod the position until I break my opponent's posture and then pass their guard. I cannot do ANYTHING until I have created an imbalance to work on. The same goes for the guy on the bottom. Generally speaking it is slightly easier overall to work for a pass than it is to sweep or submit, but the fight revolves around trying to create an advantageous enough position to be able to attack.

Anyone who says the guard is inferior in and of itself hasn't studied the sport. Even in MMA the case isn't so simple, as Noguera, Dustin Hazlet, and of course this past weekend with Werdum have shown how dangerous the guard can be. Its danger increased with a skilled guard player able to break the opponent's posture. 

So far those voicing objections are voicing only objections with their misunderstanding of the analogy, and their lack of understanding in either sport.


Nice. start a rebbutal with an ad hominem.


In anycase, I might as well list my credientials: been doing BJJ for a year and judo close to 5.


Specifically I stated that one cannot attack from an inferior position. If you have someone in your guard but - you have BROKEN their posture then the position of the guy on the bottom has an ADVANTAGE which he can then convert into an armbar, sweep or triangle.

Likewise, if the guy on the top can stabilize his position, exploit weaknesses and break the guard of the guy on the bottom only THEN will he be able to move to an advantageous position like passing the persons guard.

Now this might all seem like a banal observation, but there is a lot of information on first principles of you actually study both sports. What does it tell you? That you first need to probe for a weakness in a position before attacking.


I'm interested in your last statement (now in bold)

My main argument against this list was to do with making unhelpful generalisations. How many other sports and activities can we list where you must probe for weaknesses before attacking?  

The guard in and of itself isn't advantageous or advantageous. It is neither superior or inferior - it depends on the context.

I disagree.

I think that if you find two people equally skilled the one pulling guard is more likely to lose ("no holds barred rules") because, i think, guard is intrinsically inferior. 

though of course, with training and/or fighting those without skill this minimal intrinsic disadvantage is comepletly neutralised. Since you like chess analogies: this would be like Kasparov deliberatly dropping a pawn against me and saying "with my skill [compared to yours] being a pawn down is no disadvantage at all!" ...in spite of the fact that objective analysis of such a position proves that being a pawn down is a bad thing indeed.  

and reading your next paragraph, it would seem that you would actually agree, you just added the requirement of 'posture'.

Anyone who says the guard is inferior in and of itself hasn't studied the sport.

another ad hominem?


Even in MMA the case isn't so simple, as Noguera, Dustin Hazlet, and of course this past weekend with Werdum have shown how dangerous the guard can be.

see above (Kasparov comment)

"Anyone who says the guard is inferior in and of itself hasn't studied the sport.

another ad hominem?"

Ad hominem " attacking an opponent's character rather than answering his argument."

If a person tells me specifically that they believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old I can safely assume that they've either not studied geology etc. Or that they have and do not understand what they've studied. If I then go on to illustrate why this is the case, then it is the antithesis of ad hominem because a) I've made an observation (those who state that the guard is inferior in and of itself do not understand the sport) and b) I then go on to support this statement with direct observation (Whether or not a guard is an inferior position depends on who is able to break who's posture).

Now to show you clearly why you're not understanding the argument.

A) Guard as inferior position: So let's say you've pulled guard and you haven't broken your opponent's posture and he begins passing or trying to break your posture.

Guess what, you're not going to be pulling ANY attacks. You will NOT be able to sweep or submit.

Why? Because you can only successfully attack from a position of strength. Now why was it again that you brought up this as a counter-argument for the statement that you can attack from an inferior position? Is it because you've permanently dilineated the guard as inferior? If so, then you don't understand BJJ (even in the mma context)

For your argument to hold true, that you can successfully attack from an inferior position or a position of weakness you would have to provide a counter example - so far you have not.

B) The ONLY way to successfully attack from any position - guard or otherwise, is to obtain an advantage first.

Although I'm only a brown belt, if I were to be in Saulo Ribeiro's formidable guard he would NOT be able to successfully execute an attack UNTIL he has established an advantage somewhere. He will not immediately try to sweep or submit me, he will first try to break my posture and establish an imbalance at which point he would most surely sweep or submit me.

Let's reverse the position.

He's in my guard - I will try to do the same thing - and guess what? Saulo will NOT be able to pass my guard until he has broken my posture. He will not be able to submit me either. He has to probe for an imbalance and exploit it.

So if you're argument is that the guard is ALWAYS weaker then you don't understand the sport, as has been illustrated.

If you're argument that they guard can be used to attack when you've been able to break your opponents posture and obtained an advantage, then you've simply accepted my original analogy and there's no argument.

If you're going to tell me that a person on bottom with broken posture will be able to pull off a sweep or submission against an opponent of equal skill and size. You're just plain wrong as the body mechanics just simply aren't there, and you cannot provide an example in real life.

So which is it? Do you agree with my original statement, do you believe that the guard is always a worse position, or do you believe that when your guard is broken and you have no posture that you'll be able to execute an attack?

As far as these being "banal" observations - I can guarantee you that you make several mistakes, and have made several mistakes in class whilst training that violate these 'banal" principles.

I have taught and have helped many people over the last several years in both Chess and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and they seem to be making many mistakes. Instead of just giving them "the move" I provide the information into a conceptual framework so that they can hang the knowledge on that framework. If they try to choke me whilst in my guard (they need to pass the guard first before they can attempt to submit me) I can show them a counter to their technique (push away and attempt an armbar for example) OR I can tell them that at that point they do not have enough of a positional advantage to attempt ANY submission, that before they attempt any submission they need to improve their position and obtain some sort of favorable imbalance. I can then go on to demonstrate that if they TRY to go for a submission from within my guard they are actually voluntarily breaking their OWN posture and hence opening themselves up for attack... again something that occurs time and time again - even at the higher levels.

Also - when making these analogies they are helpful for many other reasons as you can begin to analyse people's styles and how best to counteract their particular game. And yes - these analogies can be made for just about any sport - that doesn't mean the analogy is false, it simply means that there is a unity to any endeavor whereby one individual is attempting to gain victory over another.

As I've studied both chess and brazilian jiu jitsu for a number of years I'm more qualified to make comments that are specific.

On a side note - Do you train in Great Britain? I used to train in London many moons ago - I trained for about ten solid months with London Shootfighters, Brazilian Top Team, Carlson Gracie team and a few other classes here and there. My main training though was with BTT, LS, and Tokei wrestling club on saturdays.

Chess is more vicious than martial arts. In chess your whole reason for existence is justified by the play in that one game. Can greater shame be realised other than defeat at chess ? The uneasy camaraderie amongst the lower boards in a Swiss tournament towards the end of weekend - being life's losers and the accompanying shame ! :-)

Ad hominem " attacking an opponent's  character rather  than answering his argument."

If a person tells me specifically that they believe the earth to be less than 10,000 years old I can safely assume that they've either not studied geology etc. Or that they have and do not understand what they've studied. If I then go on to illustrate why this is the case, then it is the antithesis of ad hominem because a) I've made an observation (those who state that the guard is inferior in and of itself do not understand the sport) and b) I then go on to support this statement with direct observation (Whether or not a guard is an inferior position depends on who is able to break who's posture).


Debate requires a refutation of the arguement put foward (which, you do offer), claiming I know nothing of the sport (which is, for the record, untrue) is still an ad hominem, since it is an attempt to undermine my position by attacking me instead of the argument.


A) Guard as inferior position: So let's say you've pulled guard and you haven't broken your opponent's posture and he begins passing or trying to break your posture.


It would be foolish and ignorant for me to say the guard is always inferior in all circumstances: a nicely locked in triangle or kimura would promoply dissmiss any such notion.

I consider the guard inferior simply because the guy up top has more oppurtunities: you like to talk about posture, and its importance so i ask you: who is more likely to gain posture? the guy on the bottom or the one on top?

this is course an empirical question, which is easily supported/refuted by fact. In my experience i have found that it is easier for the top guy to gain posture. thus, if you agree with this statement, could we not say that the guard is inferior in the sense that it is harder to gain posture: the guy on top simply has more chances and has an easier job of converting the guard to an advantageous position.

For your argument to hold true, that you can successfully attack from an inferior position or a position of weakness you would have to provide a counter example - so far you have not.

I wrote my first posts in the thread a while back, and after re-reading them I'm not really willing to defend them: my point was to try and debunk the list by suggesting that it might make false generalisations: my example, as expressed, was poor.

In any case, I have claimed what my intention in this thread was several times (the philosophical point that such lists full of such generalisations are often unhelpful,and at worst harmful) but in your lengthy rebuttals you attack my understanding of the guard: which is fine, so long as you realise i never intended to get into this debate and that is my opinion on the guard was always only meant as an example to illustrate a point about generalisation being harmful/false.   


So if you're argument is that the guard is ALWAYS weaker then you don't understand the sport, as has been illustrated.

as explained above, i never intended to suggest this.

Also - when making these analogies they are helpful for many other reasons as you can begin to analyse people's styles and how best to counteract their particular game. And yes - these analogies can be made for just about any sport - that doesn't mean the analogy is false, it simply means that there is a unity to any endeavor whereby one individual is attempting to gain victory over another.


But in admitting that these analogies could also refer to any other sport you implicitly submit to the idea that there is no 'special conection' or similiarity between chess and BJJ.

And if there is no specail connection between the two sports then we have learned nothing unique about chess or BJJ: your same bullet points (with only slight modification) would also demonstrate how checkers is like sambo, or how sambo is like BJJ, or how checkers is like chess and so on.




Do you train in Great Britain? 

yes, with Calson Gracie. (well, not with carlson himself, obvoiusally) 

I cannot for the life of me understand why the universality of any combat activity (intellectual or physical) makes the analogies less meaningful and not more meaningful.

As stated - I made the above analogy between Chess and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu because those are the two combat sports I am most familiar with. But another analogy can be made between boxing and checkers, chess and sambo, judo and go... and I am by no means the first person to realize the similarities.

Blackadder - I made a statement, which you tried to refute and now admit your example was bad. You cannot attack from an inferior position - that this is a fact not just in Chess or BJJ but in Checkers, Go, Shoji, Judo, Boxing etc takes nothing AWAY from this fact but illustrate that in any form of combat there are first principles. Understanding the first principles allows you to put the knowledge you do gain in a more solid framework, and it also eases the learning process as well.

By the way - if you train with carlson gracie team there's a good chance you'll know Luiz (I think he must be a brown belt by now... but I don't know as I haven't seen him in a long time) He's a really great friendly Brazilian guy with a birth mark on his face (if I remember correctly). If you know who I'm talking about ask him if he remembers a Canadian named Robert Bentley... I used to train with him quite a bit back in the day.