NO, BJJ IS NOT LIKE CHESS
It’s nearly impossible to spend any time in the Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ) community and not hear the Chess/BJJ analogy. And you, like many others, have probably heard the analogy and resonated with it; it seems apt at first glance. The more you reflect on the two activities, however, the less the comparison makes sense.
The analogy is a self-serving one for the BJJ community: it hints at infinite complexity, intellectual pursuit, and an even playing field. The analogy adds a certain sheen to BJJ. These are all things we as a community tend to pride ourselves on as aspects of our game.
As they are both primarily practiced in the modern era, both are games. And they are games of virtually infinite complexity. Here’s the analogy seems like a decent fit. But, there are lots of games that can be played that have this level one complexity; there is nothing terribly unique about BJJ or Chess in this regard.
Past this aspect the analogy starts to become very strained. Are the belts/levels in BJJ like pieces on the board? Is a BJJ match like a BJJ game? Are there strategies I can borrow from one game and apply to another? Most people seem to land on the similarities between a chess match and a BJJ match being where the analogy is the strongest. So, let’s take a look at that.
The (un)Even Playing Field
Assuming we have relative experience parity in Chess, players are dealing with an even playing field — with the exception of the decision regarding going first or second. Players are provided the same number and types of pieces that are arranged in the same way and behave exactly the same. They play a game on the same board, with the same types of pieces that do the same things consistently. When looking at BJJ, even with experience parity, things are far from equal — even if that doesn’t cause lopsidedness in a match. Even if BJJ competitors are in a bracket together, there are lots of variables that aren’t controlled for: height, mobility, flexibility, player injuries etc. . . and there is even some weight variability with a single bracket. No matter how much you believe otherwise, a Chess match is played on a much more even playing field than a BJJ match. They are not the same.
The Pieces
There are a defined set of pieces in Chess. And each pieces has a strict set of rules governing its movement. Things continue to get murkier when we look for analogies to chess pieces. The closest we can get, is to look at chess pieces as the techniques available to us in a BJJ match (kimura, americana, heel hook, etc.). But, whereas in chess we have 6 defined pieces, in BJJ we have a virtually endless catalog of techniques available to us. Even when limited by a ruleset, one competitor’s chosen moves to bring into a match could be drastically different than their competitor. The available tools in BJJ vs the standard and compulsory tools couldn't make the games more different.
Also, pieces in Chess present a clear hierarchy. No such hierarchy really exists in BJJ. What is a pawn-level technique in BJJ? Besides the concept of “high-percentage” techniques and “low-percentage” moves, the hierarchy concepts can’t really be adequately mapped onto BJJ. In fact, once a technique is deemed low-percentage, a competitor will generally remove it from their game, since it’s not working very well for them. No one can start a standard chess game and decide they’re not going to use pawns.
Moving the pieces
When a player decides to move a piece in Chess — assuming the move is legal — they can make that move without any further resistance. In BJJ, a player could decide to make some move — that is also legal — and is immediately stymied by their opponent: not countered, but completely prevented. This fact alone makes the analogy fall apart; the two games are fundamentally different.
The white queen and the black queen move the exact same way and are governed using the same rules. If we continue to assume the analog to “pieces” is techniques, then to look something like a leg triangle, we would have to assume that each player executes the exact same motions to construct identical triangles. But, when you look around at people successfully executing leg triangles: as a technique they are done many different ways. My “queen” moves differently than your “queen” in a BJJ match. Chess equalizes individual differences in a way that BJJ cannot.
Lachlan Giles does Leg Triangles one way
John Danaher does them another way
Finishing the Game
While both games have a concept of surrendering, they can play out very differently game to game. Countless Chess matches end before an explicit checkmate occurs, because they assume the opponent will make no further mistakes. BJJ, on the other hand, waits until the last possible moment, when escape is absolutely impossible. In fact, it’s not unheard of for competitors to refuse to concede and lose conscious or suffer bodily damage in a match. The concept of a Chess competitor to refuse to concede even in the face of a clear and explicit checkmate is absolutely alien.
No Analogy Needed
The good news? We don’t need an analogy for BJJ. BJJ is an amazing game/sport/system all on its own. Using the Chess analogy does nothing to deepen our understanding of BJJ. In fact, it might curtail some people using the advantages found in their own attributes and individual differences because of the rigidity of thinking resulting from this inapt analogy.
