Chess Running

Seeing that Chessboxing article gave me an idea. I like the concept of chess boxing, combining physical fitness with mental intelligence. But it encourages violence, which is definitely not good. I propose a different alternative "Chessrunning" which combines physical fitness with mental intelligence, much like Chessboxing, but without the violence. Here are the rules that I suggest:

First there would be a 5 minute round of chess, with time controls of 60 0. Then there would be an 800m running race. If anyone wins by a margin greater than 1 minute then that person would be claimed winner. Then would come another 5 minute round of chess, followed by another 800m race, the running advantage would accumulate and a player could win by gaining a lead greater than 1 minute or checkmating/winning on time against there opponent. 

Except if you were an exceptional runner, you could choose to not make move 1 until you have 5 minutes left.  Because you have 60 minutes that would give you 11 rounds of the 800m race.  So you can see how a good runner could simply chose not to play a move and win anyway.  Of course it wouldn't have to be this obvious.  Also 1 more before mate you could chose to use up your remaining races by waiting 5 minutes etc.

This is one reason why winning the race by a minute shouldn't be enough to declare an outright winner -- I think possibly a time penalty on the chess clock would be best.

Also running doesn't fatigue your chess playing ability -- at least not like getting knocked in the head would.  Physical fatigue would diminish the chess ability very little IMO.

Also boxing may be violent, but it's controlled and consensual.  I don't agree with the violence being "definitely not good" as you describe it.

Your initial point is a good one, perhaps an umpire as is your solution. I think that an ideal time penalty would be 4 minutes, in order to prevent stalling. Your point about running not ruining chess ability is true, if anything it activates your mind. But I think that this is a good thing, not a bad one, as the chess games would be of a higher standard. I also disagree with your last point, boxing can cause brain damage and is not such a good example for children. It also means that boxers are more likely to underestimate the seriousness of violence on the street. Anyway, thanks for the comment.

Turing came up with a similar idea about 70 years ago.

"Great minds think alike."

That's very interesting. However the article points out a huge flaw in the game, which does not exist in my version. Not to mention that how quickly you ran around the house would be irrelevant, defeating the whole purpose of the game.

 I thought up of a similar game: you play chess with, say, 30 minutes time control, but the clock is 20 m away, so you would have to run 40 m for each move. If the game lasts 40 moves, then that would be 800 m total running. You could move the clocks as far apart as you want, and experiment with time control, of course. 

I would add a rather large increment so as not to ruin the chess (30 seconds, maybe?) 

Are we talking metres or miles?

How about a chess clock,board and pieces - possibly magnetic - pulled along on a trailer by a motorcycle of car at about 10 miles an hour.Two runners have to keep up with the vehicle to make their moves, with say 30 minutes on the clock each ? Or am I just being silly ?

It will probably need a police escort to avoid becoming a traffic hazzard - especially if the vehicle confines itself to a single gyratory.

Have them run around a running track and the traffic problem is solved.  A track would add another element:  you lose the match if you get lapped by the chess board, same as losing on time.  Although 10 mph is a 6 min/mi pace, which is rather fast.  That would finish a 5K in a little over 18 minutes.  Not a pace that I think many chess players could maintain, especially for an hour-long game.  Perhaps there could be a sliding scale depending on the time control, with a slower pace for longer games.

meters! (yards)

 And I have to improve my math. For a 40 move game, each player would run 1600 meters (one mile). Maybe the clock should just be 10 meters away. 

Hi, I just read the posts here. I think they should do 800m race, first person who gets there get to pick colors (white obviously), make the first move and start the clock. You get time advantage from running, and win by checkmate. After checkmate go running again, and who gets there first gets white... same thing they did first time. And again, so that would be 3 times in total. Best of 3 wins.

In my version of chess running, the rules are similar to chess boxing with 11 rounds (6 of chess, 5 of runs of 1km each): you start with 3 minutes of chess, then 1km run; each player has a time control of 9minutes (like in chess boxing) and there are 10 seconds transition time between chess and run (and viceversa).
If after 11 rounds there's no winner, you add time difference between the two chess clocks and the time difference in the 5km runs: the one with the lowest total time wins.
I've been thinking of different scenarios where A and B have very different running or chess abilities but cannot find a hole in this system.. please help me!

Here's my version:

Each player gets one minute to make a move. After they have both made a move they run one lap around a 400 meter track. Each player has to run the lap under, say, 90 seconds. If they don't, they automatically lose. The clock is reset to one minute each, they make a move, run their lap, and so on.

This way, it is about endurance and not running faster than your opponent. A 25 move chess game amounts to 25 laps, which is 10 kilometers of running.

1 minute is too much. A competitive player would not be down by nearly that much

@Paulosphere Can you explain what you mean?

A competitive 800 meter race would not be won by that margin