From Chess to Checkers: How Undisputed Abandoned Its Original Vision
The Promise: Chess, Not Checkers
When ESBC (now Undisputed) was first announced, CEO Ash Habib told the community he wanted the game to play like chess, not checkers.
This wasn’t just a catchy phrase — it meant something deeper:
-
Strategic gameplay where every punch, feint, and footstep mattered.
-
Unique strengths and weaknesses for each boxer, reflecting real-life styles.
-
Long-term setups like body shots paying off in later rounds, or stamina management becoming critical deep into fights.
-
Psychological warfare, where reading your opponent was just as important as throwing punches.
For boxing fans starving for authenticity, this was the dream: a video game that finally respected the sport’s intelligence, depth, and artistry.
The Shift: From Simulation to Arcade Leaning
Over time, the messaging — and the gameplay — shifted.
-
Ash and SCI leadership began saying early builds of the game felt too much like “a 12-round chess match,” with not enough finishes.
-
Instead of embracing that identity, SCI “dialed up the action” to make fights quicker and flashier.
-
Systems that added realism — referees, clinching, detailed AI tendencies — were quietly removed or postponed.
-
Footwork became looser, stamina less punishing, and boxers more homogenized.
The result: instead of “chess,” Undisputed slid closer to “checkers.”
Misconception: Chess-Style = No Knockouts
One of the most damaging myths pushed during this shift was that chess-like boxing gameplay meant boring, drawn-out fights without knockouts.
This is simply false.
-
Mike Tyson set up devastating early KOs with slips, feints, and angles — pure chess in motion.
-
Juan Manuel Márquez’s KO of Pacquiao came from years of studying tendencies and setting a perfect trap.
-
George Foreman vs Michael Moorer (1994) showed how conserving energy and waiting for an opening could lead to a knockout in the later rounds.
In real boxing — and in a well-designed sim — chess-like gameplay can absolutely lead to explosive knockouts. The difference is that those knockouts feel earned, not manufactured by button spam.
Spammability by Design
This brings us to the biggest problem with Undisputed’s current direction: spammability.
Instead of rewarding setups, feints, and strategy, the game has been tuned to allow — even encourage — repetitive spamming. Why? Because it looks flashy, keeps fights short, and appeals to casual players.
And every time the community calls this out, the studio leans on the word “balance.”
-
Why no referees? → Balance.
-
Why can every boxer move loosely, even those who never did in real life? → Balance.
-
Why does spam still work? → Balance.
But this isn’t balanced. This is homogenization. It’s a way of saying:
“We intentionally designed the game to play more arcade because we don’t want the complexity of a chess-like sim.”
The Deflection of “Balance”
True balance in boxing doesn’t mean smoothing everyone out. It means respecting authentic strengths and weaknesses:
-
Ali’s speed vs Foreman’s power.
-
Tyson’s inside game vs Fury’s reach and movement.
-
Stamina management separating disciplined boxers from reckless brawlers.
By chasing “balance” as an excuse, SCI stripped away what made each boxer distinct. What they delivered instead was a game where spam is the strategy, not a flaw in strategy.
The Risk of This Approach
-
Casual burnout: Arcade fans move on quickly once the novelty wears off.
-
Hardcore alienation: The very community that carried ESBC in its early days feels betrayed.
-
Loss of identity: Undisputed risks being remembered not as the first true boxing sim in decades, but as “an arcade fighter in boxing disguise.”
Strategic chess-like depth is what sustains games for years. Arcade spammability may look good in a Twitch clip, but it doesn’t build longevity.
Conclusion: The Broken Promise
Ash Habib once said he wanted ESBC to be like chess, not checkers. That single phrase gave boxing fans hope that their sport — with all its intelligence, nuance, and authenticity — would finally be represented properly in gaming.
But over time, that promise was abandoned. Whether from investor pressure, internal voices like Will Kinsler, or the influence of content creators who preferred flash over substance, SCI pivoted toward arcade design.
The irony? Chess can lead to knockouts, too. Strategy doesn’t kill excitement — it amplifies it.
By chasing “balance” and spammability, Undisputed has moved further from the very thing that made it special in the first place. And until that original “chess” philosophy is restored, it risks being just another boxing game that forgot what boxing really is.
Chess vs. Checkers in Boxing Video Games
| Aspect | Chess-Style (Simulation) | Checkers-Style (Arcade/Spam) |
|---|---|---|
| Gameplay Pace | Deliberate, tactical, every move sets up the next | Fast, shallow, focused on quick exchanges |
| Knockouts | Earned through setups, traps, stamina management, and timing (can happen early or late) | Manufactured by spam combos, button-mashing, or “balance” tweaks |
| Boxer Identity | Unique strengths and weaknesses matter (Ali ≠ Tyson ≠ Foreman) | Homogenized feel; most boxers move and fight alike |
| Strategy | Feints, counters, ring control, body work create openings | Direct attacks; little reward for patience or planning |
| Stamina & Fatigue | Realistic drain; reckless play punished over time | Softened drain; allows endless output with little consequence |
| Replay Value | High — every matchup plays differently based on style and choices | Low — fights blur together, “every fight feels the same” |
| Audience | Appeals to hardcore fans who want authenticity and depth | Appeals to casuals who want short-term action |
| Longevity | Sustained by depth and mastery over years | Burns out quickly once spam patterns are solved |
Takeaway
-
Chess-style boxing games reward intelligence, patience, and creativity — with knockouts that feel earned.
-
Checkers-style boxing games reward repetition and spam — with knockouts that feel manufactured.
One builds a legacy. The other fades fast.
