As a black belt of Shaolin Kempo Karate, I have spent a great deal of time studying and practicing different martial arts techniques. As I learned about methods of analyzing chess strategy, I was struck by its applicability to the martial arts. First, for the sake of this paper, I will enumerate certain parameters through which the examination of the martial arts will be limited. It is taught for defense only. This does not indicate that aggressive strategies have no use. Instead, it means that the ultimate goal is to escape any situation unharmed, not to seek retribution or violence for another sake. Second, all discussion here will be limited to two-person confrontations for simplicity. Finally, in this paper, I will refer to formalized martial arts competitions, and not a regular street brawl. A win in such an organized competition is defined as a situation where one opponent incapacitates the other, or disables him from making a further attack.

Despite my eagerness to compare the martial arts to chess, there are two key features of chess that differ in the martial arts. First, while chess is a game of perfect information, a physical confrontation is not so. There is generally some ignorance about the opponent’s physical ability, or material parameters. While one might argue that a chess player does not know his opponent’s ability, this mental state is comparable to a fighter’s mental state. A fighter’s physical ability is analogous to the ability of the pieces on the chess board to move. Physical ability includes the material, a term for the prelearned routines that every artist acquires. Second, while in chess one cannot use an opponent’s captured piece against him, this limitation does not exist in the martial arts. Obtaining an opponent’s weapon may be key to a defeat. Although the martial arts diverges from chess in these two defining qualities, the analogy comparing different styles of play is still instructive.

There are two essential similarities between these forms of competition that make them extremely compatible for discussion. The first is the that they are both two-player zero-sum games. In a martial arts competition, the only possible outcomes are one player incapacitates the other, or there is a stalemate. There is no "win-win" solution. Second, the magnitude of alternatives available to both chess players and fighters is similar. In chess, the number of possible moves in a game is finite, but so large that it is functionally infinite. While the number of moves in a martial arts competition might possibly be finite or infinite, so many variations and combinations make it effectively infinite. Along the same line, both games have a clear goal (checkmate or incapacitating opponent), but many different ends that achieve that goal. This multitude, coupled with the huge total number of legal moves, makes it impossible to systematically link the end to the beginning. Even great chess computers cannot calculate fast enough to ever discover an optimal series of moves. People deal with our inability to link the end to the beginning by developing different styles of playing intended to maximize chances of winning while minimizing costs (like time, and required experience or brain power).

In chess, a player may choose between a reactive and selective style of play. The reactive style is akin to a reflex, or a rule of thumb. When certain conditions occur, the player will respond automatically according to set guidelines. There are several advantages to this style. Decisions are quick and simple, and they draw on examples of past success. This style is particularly useful to a novice who cannot yet apply more complex decision-making to the game, but even a master will use it in some situations like the opening. The drawbacks to this style need attention. Rules of thumb frequently conflict, and offer no mechanism for reconciling them. Additionally, there is no flexibility or way of adjusting to an opponent’s style or strengths. Finally, a rule of thumb is not necessarily linked to any particular end. It is useless to remember a certain move is advantageous, if one cannot recall what it will help achieve.

The reactive method plays a significant role in the martial arts. The nature of the competition requires a speedy response, one of the largest advantages to the reactive style. Therefore, a great deal of one’s early training in the martial arts involves acquiring a ken of heuristics, or reflexive responses called material. Paramount among the material taught is a genre called combinations. Combinations are a short series of defensive moves designed to counter to a particular attack. For example, when someone lunges and strikes overhead with a weapon in his left hand, a successful reaction of combination 1 will result in incapacitating the assaulter. Combinations are practiced incessantly precisely to make the responses reflexive. One of the qualities of a grand master of Shaolin Kempo is said to be a state of "No Mind," where there is no thought at all involved in certain responses. They are purely reactive.

The reactive method is the most simplified technique for dealing with the huge number choices available in these games. Rules of thumb are not developed by scanning and evaluating all alternatives, but by holding onto something that works. They will frequently overlook a better alternative. As in chess, the reactive method will not enable a martial artist to defeat someone with significant training. The selective method is required to surmount the limitations of the reactive method. This style can be subdivided into the combinational and the positional styles. In any game, the combinational style requires a narrowly defined material goal and a specific course of action to achieve it. In chess, this translates to planning an attack on one particular piece of the opponent’s. This style is favored because it is compatible with the majority of advanced players’ strategic ability to think only several moves ahead. In addition, in this style, the player focuses on a limited area of the board. The primary shortcoming of the combinational style is its failure to consider the overall position. While one player might take advantage of a combinational opportunity, his opponent could have intentionally sacrificed some material in exchange for improving his general position on the board. If the first player does not consider this, he could fall into a larger trap of his opponent. There is also a difficulty to the combinational approach. While the ultimate goal, to reach checkmate, is clear, choosing a short-term goal, or deciding which piece to attack is generally not obvious.

In Shaolin Kempo, the combinational style has some limited value. It is analogous to a technique called a "feign." A feign is a deceptive move intended to elicit a certain physical reaction, or state of mind from the opponent. It is combinational because a feign has the immediate goal of causing the opponent to do or think something particular. Though "material" in the martial arts is more nebulous than in chess, the immediate state of mind and physical state seem somewhat analogous to the pieces on a chess board. They are tools in the competition, but must be "manipulated" deliberately to defeat the opponent. In one example of a feign, a player will make one of his fists menacingly apparent to his opponent while shielding the other in some manner. While the opponent’s attention is fixed on the front fist, the player will attack with the hidden fist. The opponent’s reaction, being fooled, is to his disadvantage, but the first player’s ability to exploit this state is not included within this short-term strategy. In chess, this is similar to winning an opponent’s piece, and subsequently being unsure of what to make of your new advantage. Feeding an opponent misinformation with a feign is undoubtedly to the player’s advantage, but he is still left with the dilemma of how to proceed. The feign could not be considered a reactive strategy, though, because the move is not a response to a specific situation, but instead the player must select to make this move among many alternatives.

The style of play that takes into account both players’ overall situations is the positional style. In this style, a player considers how to improve his positional parameters. This may call for sacrificing some material, or making a move that has no apparent immediate value. The positional style, much more than the other two, depends very heavily on a player’s personal ability. Because the style considers not just the present moves, but the future too, a player must have confidence that in the future, he will be able to make clever moves, possibly a combination. In chess, the positional style involves considering the location of the pieces and one’s own ability to exploit it.

In Shaolin Kempo, the positional style is used both during a competition, and during pre-competition training. The Shaolin Kempo philosophy involves studying five animals: the snake, the leopard, the crane, the tiger, and the dragon. Each animal has different characteristics and strengths. One with supernatural powers would be able master all of the best qualities of each animal. However, due to people’s predispositions and physical limitations, each individual embodies a different combination of the animals according to his ability. This personal combination is called one’s own dragon. For example, as a small person, I use little tiger technique, which requires strength, and more snake technique, which takes advantage of wrapping around an opponent. A positional style in Shaolin Kempo means honing in on my optimal combination of the animals and exploiting my personal strengths. First, in a practice setting, this includes directing my study away from animals’ techniques that would be less beneficial to me, and concentrating on those I could successfully perform. In competition, it entails perceiving the opponent’s dragon and weaknesses to penetrate his position. For example, if I realize that my opponent is mostly a leopard, he will move on diagonals and attack my sides. I can turn my body to give him the smallest side target possible, thus improving my defensive position. Because I am mostly a snake, twisting my body is my strength and I am confident that I will be able to use this twisted position to my advantage later to incapacitate my opponent. A less experienced or differently proficient martial artist might lack the skill to take advantage of this position. The key to the relationship between the positional strategies of chess and the martial arts is the extreme subjectivity. In both disciplines, certain moves are only beneficial to one who is able to recognize opportunities for success from that position. This level of sensitivity requires both confidence and a realistic perspective of one’s own ability.

Chess and the martial arts are nicely comparable because they are ancient, well-studied disciplines with room for a large disparity in playing abilities. However, the three styles of play discussed may instructively be applied to most forms of competition or conflict. The key that makes these approaches applicable is when a game is too extensive to be able to consider an moves. Each of these styles provides one way of handling enormity. The positional style is the most thorough, but it also requires the greatest amount of both thought and competence. It is no surprise that my martial arts instructor constantly reminded us:

In the martial arts, this equation would be a state where neither player has learned any material, i.e., they would not be martial artists. Such an illogical result could be averted if there were certain constraints on the values of complexity (for example C ¹ O).

O/C º 20/2C

Back to Art & Literature

Back to Title Page