No excuses

Do not find fault, find a remedy (Henry Ford)

   At the time of transfer of the former director of marketing for his successor, he wished him luck and gave him three letters saying that when you face a real crisis then open the first one, that when he got to meet a second  big problem open the second, and keep the third to attack a third critical problem. Thanked with detail the new director took the 3 letters and put them away. 

  Time passed and became the first extreme situation, cornered decided to open the first letter that read: "Blame your predecessor." He did so and saved the situation. Later he found a new problem that could not resolve, so he opened the second letter: "Blame your team." Again allowing work forward. Then came a third crisis that only found the third one as a solution, it said: "Start typing 3 letters".

   This is a typical story that appears in equipment management courses. The first time I heard it I thought of the incredible ability we have people making excuses and take balls out and how much it costs us to recognize errors. 

   This story has several versions or even you can give some orientation depending to the course you want, but I'm staying with this: This speaks of the assumption of consequences of self-deception (How many times self-convinced of the excuses we built?), to buy time wirh excuses base, the need to look at yourself because there comes a time when the excuses are not needed and doesn't work ... you can even read in terms of ethics within the company.

   In chess can fall into this, we can convince others and even ourselves in that game or the tournament had bad luck, I had a headache, had not slept well, had a fly distracted me or that the moon was in waning ... the reality is very stubborn and always eventually agree. 

  Of course, we are human and we have ups and downs, we get sick and can we sleep badly, but these things should not use them as placeholders for not face ourselves. If we look honestly at ourselves looking for the why, we will have taken the first step to improve ... something else usually makes the ball bigger and that the blow stronger reality.

   We don't lose or win due it was penalised a penalty unfair or because someone slipped when launching the decisive triple or because the sun was over the face or blowing wind. We do it because we made a series of decisions and our opponent takes other, as the balance between each other, and the outcome. 

   Chess allows us not only unexcused external review the consequences of what we do but it also allows us to compare the reasoning processes on an equal footing with others: In one board position different people choose different  valid options under its various schemes reasoning, personality, circumstances or knowledge, which can enrich us with these other visions expanding our own views and diagrams.

   Companies spend lots of money on courses for their managers to develop (among others) these skills, both self-criticism as the revision of their reasoning and management processes... as a chess player  I think I have lucky to explore these fields with something I like as much as chess.

The original post was published in Spanish in my collaboration with the website Chesslive.com

How I used the chess to win a bet in the office?

"A player who is surprised is half beaten" (Proverb)

   At this time I worked in the Strategic  marketing department of a large company Mobile.

    The situation came just after launching a new range of price plans that showed some aggressiveness within the schemes that existed in the market these days. In the "launch day", our director called us for a meeting and invited us to think about the answers that could give our main competitor.

   In the round of the interventions, my comrades talked about classical schemes managing  the price per minute, and the amounts of Mb or minutes to be included in the offer, respecting fringes morning-afternoon-evening-weekend

   When I had to speak, I thought as I do during a game of chess ... putting myself in the place of my opponent, trying to think in terms of what would be the best for him, trying to take advance avoiding his best options

   Using this scheme I thought: Right now we have a larger market share (which in chess could be assimilated with an advantage) Our offer is focused to maintain the same way consolidating the advantage, if I was "my opponent" try to break this dynamic, so I should not make a move conservatively to keep the situation (fight scheme price within the same ideas), try to find counterplay to see if they can find weakness in the position of the side that has the advantage ... this requires aggressive action, surprise, not without risks, but in the end you have to catch up.
 

  My answer, following this reasoning chess, was that a family would fare spread the "promoted" hours in different bands, ie, if the "traditional" was to provide 6-8 hours of morning / afternoon / evening would let something like take 3 morning and 3 in the afternoon .... I thought it could be,  without an analysis of returns, something he had not offered by anyone on the market until this time and could attract attention, and, above all, could baffle the competition .... By doing this, they'd get counterplay with which, taking risks, could return to the fight for customers.

   The reaction of all my colleagues was "you have no idea", "how it shows you do not know anything about pricing", "the business case would never profitable" "absurd"

   To settle the matter, I proposed to make a little bet to see who was closer to the type of response. All of them accepted.

   A month later, the business proposal from the competitor was based on the distribution of hours in 2 bands of 4 hours, with their restrictions, but gave the client a flexibility that no one else offered that time ..... I took a few coffees with money from the bet

    The other consequence was that competition began to get more customers, getting cut our market share, which led us to "copy" your offer ... using chess terms, we lost the lead and our lead was in danger

   In this anecdotal situation  I used schemes any chess player, no matter his level, has internalized:

• Situation analysis (what is on the market and what's not)
• DO NOT underestimate the opponent (always think about what would be your best guess, and it is assumed that you will make the best choice for him)
• The principle that when you have an advantage you have to play trying to limit the opponent's counterplay capacity, and is at a disadvantage when you have to play aggressively to try to generate weaknesses in the opposite
• NO complacency in a better position,  because all we play games that have been taking advantage and we've  lost due to "relax a moment" or by an badly-timed error letting recover our rival.

The original post was published in Spanish in my collaboration with the website Chesslive.com

How to use the match Anand-Carlsen to promote the local chess?

He that would have the fruit must climb the tree. (saying)

   Following the post where I talked about the match between Anand and Carlsen I've recived many very good comments, that I can only deeply thank. During these comments has made a  ​​"hard" prior analysis of product release from the marketing point of view (which, as we all know, is more than just making announcements)

• It's seen the potential of the product: The duel has a sporty and emotional potential quite high.
• There are intangibles associated with the ability to generate a myth.
• Quite a global collective will be watching the same event.
• There is a target in the medium-long term,  where this event is included.
• They look at how little the difficulties "of watching"  of the event for the uninitiated in the game.
• For the ultimate goal of promoting chess, this madtch can be a "point of atention" but not enough, we need to surround him with something more.
• It's tough to get a place in mass media outlets to increase the public.
• If achieved this slot in medias, what approach should be given to have a positive effect?

   In the current post I propose a personal idea of how to try to exploit this particular event (of course are totally debatable, expandable and can improve). As I said I think the best way for the popularization and consolidation of chess in the schools, with the inclusion of specific subjects and practice as a school sport. Go with the political establishment awareness of the benefits that can bring chess in personality formation and development of the skills of the students.

  A federal level I consider the need involvement in this regard:  arguments and people prepared to raise it are not lacking in the various levels of government (local, regional, national or European) can work agreements. Chess is not only dedicated to ask subsidies, is willing and able to contribute to society with specific aspects and benefits.

   Returning to the specific issue of the match between Anand and Carlsen, if I were in some federation and would be working the publicity campaign ... but it escapes me what specific plans they have and the approach they're working. Here I will focus on what is in the hands of any of us, our own environments. I would use this match as an excuse to raise awareness: we can not expect someone who does not know what this understand or value the subtleties and wonders they can do on the board, but it's possible call attention to approaching someone interested.

   As a first concrete proposal I can think of that can arrange hearings in clubs (ideally several) where either follow the games live or analyze and discuss the last game played (by days and hours) These analyzes can be staged so that without getting into technical nuances can convey to someone not chess that behind every move (or possibility) there is a world. This requires someone with "not a lot of" chess knowledge but someone with the ability to convey emotion and connect easily without getting lost in technicalities.

   In parallel to this can be arranged simultaneous, courses for children, courses for parents to see their children start to play and can do something with them, previous talks presenting the match talking about the characteristics of the players, etc ... In the schools are can make this activity as something that parents and children can do together outside of school hours in their own "neighborhood".

  Maybe it isn't very different from what we've tried from the various clubs, I think the difference may be to involve local media .... This is where the striking use of the event, which is global and can approach the local level:

Before to the dates, start a campaign presentation:

• Who are the opponents?
• How do they differ in styles? (here you can use to convey that, as in other sports, there isn't a unique style, such as a "no-chess player" could think)
• Why this match is special?

   Once it has begun, preparing press releases and appearances on radio to explain the various activities, put in nontechnical language what happened in that game , what can happen in the next. 

   When finished you can make it the same summarizing what happened, analyzing consequences, showing what has brought... 

   If this is done "well" and explain language is achieved to reach the "no-players" then...we would get to talk about chess in local media for two months (which could approach people to the clubs), and maybe get someone in the media considers continuing collaboration.

   What I think is important here is the working together of different clubs and players. Depending on the size of cities is more or less easy, but I think it is important for:

• Share Logistics and tasks: Resource Optimization pure and simple
• Give sense of closeness: Chess is not something exclusive to "who is" is something that is in your neighborhood and you can join your neighbors
• Do not split the target audience: Not the same join 2 people in each of the 4 clubs in a city (for example) that gather to 8 in one location.
• To the local media is always easier to access if you have something worked between various entities (and make no mistake, it is work that should do us) with a commitment to continuity.
• Always more positive to show that we are united in a common goal and not seek interests. Let our sports rivalries are healthy and do not prevent us from working together.

   Obviously it is not easy, it requires hard work, knocking on many doors and make an important exercise of generosity and altruism . Requires you really want to try and don't take refuge in that" it is very difficult" and to doing well a slow work in the medium term is required: Yes, it's difficult, yes, work is in the medium term, but if not try to take advantage events like this, we can not complain that none open doors to develop planned and serious work.

The original post was published in Spanish in my collaboration with the website Chesslive.com

Can the match between Magnus Carlsen vs Anand, popularize chess?

Dreams are private myths and myths are shared dreams  (Joseph Campbell)

   Talking with chess players about what can boost chess to become more popular and the consequent transformation into sponsorships, almost all their hopes in short-term (on another occasion we can talk about the medium-term plans) in the match for the world championship between Carlsen and Anand. Let me to be far less optimistic, at least in the popularization and promotion point outside specialized circles.

   I give my reasons. Speaking in chess terms I have no doubt it will be a meeting of high level and all of us who love and enjoy chess we will have a event to remember, but I think that's not going to get "beyond our borders". I think the expectations of all the people I talked about it are based on the presence-creation of a myth, a figure which can be sold as exceptional.

   The subtext here is that we need a figure that jumps to media icon beyond the board, you need a Tiger Woods, a Michael Schumacher, someone who with his legendary brand can become invincible myth. ... And that would be only if he wins Carlsen.  What if Anand wins? Anand already a world champion, irreproachable quality and does not have that status. We can only consider Carlsen for that objective, due to youth,  historical records beaten, by palmares ... it has everything except  the title of world champion. If he doesn't win, it will be a stray bullet (in this sense advertising) and perhaps unrecoverable: do not sell the same to say who gets to be the best in the world with 22 years with 26 ... looks but not the same.

   If you remember, in a previous post mentioned a small survey was done among not "chess people" , and that the result was that these people were  mentioned only Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer as players. Regardless of the quality of these players (than non-chess players can not appreciate except for the results), what I believe to be joining them in the collective memory, is the special circumstance which sold around them at a key moment his career, Fischer was the flag of the West against the great Russian threat during the Cold War, and not only that, he was able to beat them on their own ground, with their arms, was a victory that transcended mere sport, sold as a displays of superiority, and that the instrument was chess, was anecdotal (except for the fact that it was the national sport and identification of Russia).

   The Kasparov-Karpov rivalry was fueled as the breath of fresh air in Russia against the rigid scheme of the old regime ... if we add a bloody fight high quality, we have all the elements that transcends (I think that the television audience of the last game of the match in Seville was followed by millions of people in Spain on TV). 

   In these years we lived high-quality meetings, there have been many players that have made us enjoy,  a myth as Kasparov have been overcome by a former student ... but it has not gotten any similar impact. I think we missed (and we lack now) a rivalry that feeds the chance to enter who is not specialized audience.

   Thinking a little above, the greatest sports rivalries have always needed to sell that transcended the playing fields to gain or maintain status: The Real Madrid and Barcelona need each other and the national football and basketball also feeds on this rivalry. River-Boca, Milan-Juventus ... The NBA finally exploded by the commercial vision of David Stern taking advantage of the Magic-Bird rivalry (Lakers-Boston) and topped with an icon like Michael Jordan. Think of other sports and I'm sure you can see how rivalries are born and reborn fueling new: the Connors-McEnroe-Lendl the Nadal-Federer-Djockovic of Doohan-Crivillé the Rossi-Lorenzo, the Senna-Prost to Alonso-Vetel.

   Symptomatic case of these promotional tactics based on these two pillars (myths + rivalries) is cycling, which also needs a lot of sponsors. His "high publicity" heroic match the great myths (Merx, Hinault, Indurain, Armstrong) or dominant rivalries (Fignon-Lemond-Delgado, Bugno-Ciapucci Rominger, Pantani, Ullrich, Armstrong, Contador-Schleck) and their "valleys", their moments of less "pull" advertising / sponsorship match when, despite having good people do not get to sell this "extra" or simply fall into disgrace when one of the pillars (Armstrong).

   In short, as I see it, at least by advertising seem to need "something" that can be sold to "unskilled" that can transcend the image of people in front of a statue plan board, something that catches your eye so that we can teach what we are and what we have to offer. 

   Yourselves, never will go to find a new product or buy something new, if not call your attention in some way and you arouses curiosity. That "something" may be the tactic that has worked in other sports: building a myth that quality also will add a special aura (one Jordan, Phelps, Bolt, Woods, Federer, Schumacher, Rossi, Messi, Indurain) or rivalry (real or fictitious) that addresses two models, something that is not necessarily rational, rather than simply have him speak, to call attention to who comes to see what this thing called  Chess.

The original post was published in Spanish in my collaboration with the website Chesslive.com

Working Skills

The ignorant says, the wise doubts and reflects (Aristoteles)

   One of the things that any player of any level repeated from the first game that play "seriously " is to analyze the game with the rival, talking about why each move, alternative paths, looking for better options. Many times, more cold, repeat the analysis with club mates or you just at home with a computer, and it falls within the preparedness plan for each player.

   Now I will focus on the analysis of the moment just after shaking hands with the opponent. This exercise may seem that only a formalism of "education" of sport (like the third time in rugby matches), which is important as such has much "more crumb". What I will describe may seem idealized and I can not say that in 100% of cases, but in my many years of playing or coaching I've seen as usual, and I think most chess players who read this will agree.

   The analysis "hot" you do with your opponent, more than the anecdotal comments about if the move X is better or worse, is a very useful exercise from the standpoint of chess (in fact I consider it one of the foundations for progress) and in terms of personal training in values ​​and customs that can translate to other areas of life, and especially the working environment:

   Confront your vision of an objective reality (a board with some pieces in a particular provision) with that of your opponent, you are living the same reality at the same time, speaking both from a level playing different interpretations of it. How many activities / games communication courses are about the reality of "broken telephone" or a different interpretation of the same event?

   Here is a dialogue where there are objectively the same, and there are arguments to support your "vision", so it is an exercise in building arguments which necessarily have to avoid complacency or speeches of "bad luck": I made this move because I thought this and considered these things. You can be right or wrong, you may be escaped or over-evaluated something else, but there are no external factors. This circumstance leads to self-criticism, which should lead to try to improve. What HR department  rejects someone who of its own accord  becomes constructive criticism and try to improve without anyone "you achuche" to it (assuming minimal knowledge of what it takes for a job)?

   When discussing why he makes a concrete move aloud explains the thought process that led you to make a decision and to review whether the decision was good or bad, you also check the thought process that led you there, so you can work decisions from the origin. Much of the theory of coaching is aimed to get you to rethink your thinking. This is a good exercise also from this point of view. When it comes to the move that you expect your opponent to do at one time or the plan you thought you had and really listen to what your opponent wanted, doing a job of "active listening" and "reading nonverbal cues" very useful in the process of management of a team of people or meeting management.

   Many times in the analysis, both players (even with a "guest" you can join) look for the best options for both sides, so that there is a sincere collaboration of wanting progress making knowledge and vision of each one finding the best answer to a problem. It's a job where you have an egalitarian dialogue, which is heard and valued the opinion of others, to build a common solution ... well, almost a textbook definition of what is teamwork.

   In an analysis hot, just after the game, the psychological and emotional elements are present , willy nilly factors influences how we see reality or do we take a certain decision. On a cold analysis on the computer, you  win objectivity but lose psychological circumstances. Obviously not the same make a Queen sacrifice if you're playing to win a tournament when you're playing for the "honor" with a friend. In a position with several valid options, you don't do the same move if you come from a streak of winning 10 games or if you come from a 10-game losing. In these analyzes one advances in their selfKnowledge seeing the influences of these circumstances. Many emotional intelligence courses you try to explain how to manage the emotions of others as it is assumed that self-knowledge is not always true ... What better to try it in a totally controlled as is chess?

   As you can see this exercise with rival analysis after a game, which is a very internalized practice in chess, has much in common with professional development courses that are usually managed from Human Resources departments.

In short, ignoring the purely technical related to chess, here from a purely working skills in:

• Contrast realities 
• Dialogue
• Respect for the opponent
• Self-criticism 
• Revision mental processes 
• Active listening 
• Teamwork 
• Emotional self-Awareness

   At the risk of being repetitive, I think this kind of practice show chess as a very useful model to work aspects with practical relevance in professional life.

The original post was published in Spanish in my collaboration with the website Chesslive.com 

 

Galicia in mourning

  I know this is not neither Chess nor Business, I know that deviates from the theme of the blog and I apologize if you ever find inappropriate ..... but that's what I need to say

    Both in Chess as the world of business everything loses all meaning if we forget that above all there are always people and feelings.

Negra Sombra 

(Rosalía / Carlos Núñez / Luz Casal)

Where are we?

"Good positions do not win games, good moves itself" (G-Abrahams)

   Continuing with the previous entries we will try to implement marketing imagination and spirit in order to get sponsorship for the chess world. When we play a game and we face the decision of the moves, first of all, we need to evaluate the position remaining after the play of the opponent.

   Very briefly the steps would be:

•  We see what has moved.
•  Detecting which are direct threats.
•  See how to change the situation of the pieces as a result of this movement.
•  Check how it affects the plan we had planned and if we have to change.

   In the second part we compare the structure looking for strengths and weaknesses of both  own and rival, and value the gameplay possibilities that have the pieces on the board (which pieces are most active, which ones to improve or what pieces of hand can make worsen their situation and what they give us the most problems)

   If we do this previous analysis, the odds of finding the best plan increase significantly, the move to make would be the consequence of the plan we decided to follow (remember the SWOT analysis mentioned in the previous post).

   That said, we have to evaluate the position in which we find:

   Currently, chess has good reputation ... is always good to say that you play chess, nobody looks like a crazy thing, and it is normal that you consider in the category "the smart". Likewise, nearly all are seeing it as a game and not a sport, it still has the aura of some smart people, but rather "Geeks".

   Some time ago, in a talk on Twitter on this topic, the other person closed the conversation by saying that chess is like poetry, very nice, very cool, which is quite good, but at the time to spend money... how many people buy poetry? Chess is something that  is considered minority, even though almost everyone has been in front of a chess board sometime in their life, even if in the same way that has been before the Parcheesi board, so they do not find anything strange .

   At this point we have some strengths and some weaknesses? We play this game.. are we smarter than others or simply are some geeks? Surely any of those things, but I do have to be aware that we are perceived as well, and if anything teaches advertising or marketing in general is that it is more important how you perceive something that it really is.

   In the mass media (sports or general) there is little room for chess news, although in almost all them exists the typical problem in  hobbies section. The recent Tal Memorial Super Tournament, with several of the best current players How many news or reviews in  "not  specialized" newspapers / websites are you read? I do not talk of covers, but I think we could aspire to any room regularly, at least comparable to that seen for other sports "minority"

  On the other hand, if today questions down the street or in the office to "not chess people" about chess players names... what do you think would be the most mentioned?

   I took the test and, in this order were, Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer

   Coincidence? What do these players have in common to be in the collective memory?, Any current player may occupy a similar status, What would be required? Unfortunately now I'm just thinking international players, the same people (not chess) asked if they could tell me some Spanish player: one happened to mention Paco Vallejo and other (curious case his youth) quoted me Arturito Pomar, and the other use a "poker face" like answer.

   Yes, I know that I have a pair of post just throwing questions, but to achieve a difficult goal wer have to understand that there are difficult questions raised (and sure I have left many), and give answers before complacency of our strengths: When you resolve threats and weaknesses, our strengths we should give "decisive advantage". 

The original post was published in Spanish in my collaboration with the website Chesslive.com 

Think & Do

"The laws of Chess do not allow a free choice: you have to move like it or not" (Lasker)

   I firmly believe that chess is an effective and useful tool  in the preparation of a professional who aspires to be useful in their daily work. As commented in my presentation, i'm going to alternate posts with analysis and discussion , with other concepts in which try to relate both worlds (chess and businesses).

  In all lectures / courses that I have done on marketing or project management began in one way or another telling what a SWOT analysis (Strengths-Weaknesses-Threats-Opportunities), presenting it as a key element for the development of the we wanted to do. I can only agree ... if done right.

   In almost every analysis I have seen throughout my professional life, you tend to overestimate their own strengths, minimize competition, underestimate our weaknesses increasing competition one: the Business Case "have to go" because this is good and can not be stopped because the figures do not say it in Excel.

  Here we forget the objective assessments, we get carried away by our subjective and because we are pre-convinced of the result not wanting to see that we could be wrong, or at least is necessary to revise the approach.

  The analysis of a chess position not unlike virtually nothing of a SWOT analysis: see what's from the point of view of what our strengths and the weaknesses of the opponent to see where we have to attack, review the threats that we rival and tried to cover our weaknesses, and as the weight of each factor will make a move or another.

  Every player has fallen many times in the mistake of overestimating or underestimating the strengths of the opponent, and we have all lost a lot of games for this. The development of a player, among other things, is based on the ability to achieve the objective assessments in the playing positions

   Let's consider the chess board as our training camp to make SWOT analysis: working objectivity, the correct reading of the conditions and those of others, we can develop a "sixth" sense to find hidden threats and can fail to see where our seemingly good position. Finally, working our ability to search for opportunities, even in complicated situations where there seems to be nothing.

  All these points are important in itself, but I'm focusing on the last one personally think it's an important nuance.

  Chess forces you to think, but also to act, we can not "in pass" the move just because it doesn't ring the bell ... and on top you have limited time.

  Many times both in professional situations and in the derivatives of the game we were out of options, we were blocked with no ability to react to the situations. Like all,  imaginative capacity to find solutions and answers to complicated situations can be trained, you can work from the standpoint of constructive forces you to find "something".

  The problem is that in the office is playing "live fire" and be answered faster than we would like or need to find an answer yes or yes and if not used, often we do not know how to start looking.

  The best professionals that I've met are precisely those who could manage in these situations without blocking. There are many ways to prepare for this, and I think one of the best is just chess.

The original post was published in Spanish in my collaboration with the website Chesslive.com 

Solution to the problem of structure

Let's recall the proposed position:

White plays

   The solution is based more on strategy and focusing in target than in exact calculations.

    The main idea is to use the situation of the black pieces to the queenside (columns b and c) shorting the roads that let them to defend his King. If the target  is gotten, the difference of attack pieces against the small defense forces should come to win.

  If the white's moves are sufficiently aggressive and fast, no matter the difference of total material on the board.

    This post is eminently chess, but the way about how to think and act could be extrapolated to a sales channel strategy.
 

Structure, To be or not to be?

... That's the question

   In a previous post talked about the concept of structure in chess.

    Just what we said in the post about the soul of chess, this is a concept that chess is slowly understanding, as you progress in learning, which is the structure you see who sets how you should play. This is an idea that was revolutionary in the c. XVIII and remains in force today.

   It's  a concept and a very simple idea, the problem arises when we read a little better ... In what sense what brand? What am I supposed to do with a certain structure? What not to do? What if I do not hear what the structure is telling me  or  interpresto  badly? I lose immediately?

   We'll back  to these questions a little later, let's think about one company, no matter what Without thinking much it's easily understandable that a company of 5 employees can not and should act like one of 5,000. Why? As initial responses we leave issues like money that can be handled in each of them, in the size of the distribution networks in the size of the target market, etc ... and what do they have in common these ideas?

   Basically all these ideas come together in the concept of the structure of each company. The structure defines what type of operations, markets and objectives can achieve the company. Or reading  backwards, if I want my company will go to a certain type of market,  provide it with a structure that makes this possible is needed

    What if they are not rhythmic business objectives with the structure available?

   In the company, it owns the structure it wants to have, and must be created in accordance with its objectives. Failure to do so does not mean having to shut down the company, but as the same way that in chess, if the company doesn't have the optimal structure, the logical result is incur inefficiencies, unnecessary loss of time, money and effort..  But Do you always have the necessary structure to the objectives? Were the targets have been set considering the structure and the competition's  or are made with the move "Hope"?

  With chess learn to read the signs environment that marks the structure and function objectives we seek it, and if these goals do not fit what we need, our goal is to change the structure.

    This has the danger of deviating from the main goal of the game and is an option that will be evaluated in time as effort and profit achieved.

  A company that once its activity if it poses a restructuring, in addition to the purely social or ethical issues, has to assess how long it may take this movement how much effort and what benefit will get, and if this compensates for deviating from ultimate goal of any business is to sell.

  Again we can see that chess provides a model that can help us to appreciate and take into account various considerations that can be used within a professional environment.

   Returning to the chess concept, structure, speaking very generally, indicates which pieces can better develop their potential (for example, in open positions   the bishops who have a long journey is better than having knights, and conversely, in positions where the configuration of pawns form a very tight structure, the knight has an action potential greater than the bishop)

    We also indicates where we should focus our efforts to try to get advantages over rival good where it is weakest, or where we are stronger.

    The structure restricts or facilitates the game, promoting the advantages and disadvantages ... and here we return to the position that we put in the previous post:

What is White's move?


    Let's read the structure: If we see the arrangement of pawns, the black side is like an arrow pointing to the queenside (columns a b c), while White has that arrow imaginary to the black king. Black has just put his rook on a7 to control their attack out there, as the structure tells you to do, but white moves ....

    White has all its pieces oriented to the black King,  has well placed Rooks to attack the weakness of f7. There is equality of material, but the circulation of black pieces to defend his King is more complicated.

    To see the right move, you have to think that in these circumstances not so much the total material available to each side but also one that is available attacking forces against the pieces defending

Wake up!

Understand your opponent to find the best move

   We are in economic crisis ... is nonsense to say it, I Know, at this point everyone has experienced in one form or another, but it is a reality that we have to take into account.

   A few days ago I went back to thinking about one of those recurring themes in chess: How to get sponsors, how to get money to support structures, clubs, tournaments ...

  The public grant money is shrinking as the contributions of private companies, and is somewhat logical, both state and  enterprises have to watch every penny they use and where they use.

   Seen from the point of view of the chess world may seem to invest in chess is a good thing, because we know the many advantages and benefits it brings. We know that the practice of chess has helped both personal facets facets as professionals, and we believe that if there were more players, we would see mass collective benefits in the medium term 

   Well, we know that we're in this, we benefit, but ...is it known beyond our circle? Have we transmitted these advantages beyond our own circle?

   Looking from the point of view of those who have the money, we have to be aware that they have less and who uses his money in something that will net expected benefit. In good times, it was easier to appeal to the "image" that could be provided and that for four dollars would look good ... Not now, the "brand" is fine, but now companies need a tangible benefit for each investment, either by the publicity generated either by the opening of a niche market that will bring customers or by other means that will allow for quantifiable return.

   The question we must ask when from chess going to try to get sponsorships is what we are offering,? how we are offering? and what will make us different to the tournament organizer of poker or  paddle or whoever are Knocking on the same gates looking for the same money?.. Do we offer what the prospective sponsor looking for? if not, do we understand what he need? Do we can offer it?

   We can not be so pretentious as to assume that we are better than others and that "it is  known" ... we must find a way to prove it, to leave no doubt.

  This approach is the same of a free market: Several products (sports, cultural associations, etc ...) are trying to convince the client (sponsors) that it is better to use your money on its product , rather than competitive products.

With all this I convey that we need to look and act, not waiting for others to come to us we have to go looking for then, using arguments and offering, into what we have, what they need. If we  do not give them advertising, increasing return as potential customers, or in any other way, They hardly will  put money on us.

    No magic formulas, but we can't stop, I'm sure we can find ideas to solve this problem, ... it's time to apply some of the benefits that we say it has chess. Analysis, planning, Imagination, Empathy ...

The Soul of Chess

"The pawns are the soul of chess" (Philidor)

   In chess we call structure to the provision that adopt pawns of both sides on the board.

    For the particularity of movement of pawns that can't back the way they came and eat in a lateral move, the pawns are pieces that can be locked so that real walls constructed to limit the game to other pieces.

   According to these distribution can talk both closed positions where there is a significant amount of pawns and in more or less static state or open positions where the board has a clear image of pawns, either because they are not or because they are in their initial positions.

    Visually I think you can easily distinguish

   A concept that comes in chess as you progress in learning is that the structure marks how you should play. This is an idea that has already worked in the century XVIII by Philidor and with more or less ornaments is still in force today.

    The pawn structure is relatively stable and therefore largely determines the strategic nature of the position. Weaknesses in the pawn structure, once created, are usually permanent and often are arguments to attack by the contrary.

   In the absence of these structural deficiencies, it is not possible to classify a pawn formation as good or bad - because it depends on the position of other pieces. However, the pawn formation determines the overall strategy of the players greatly.

    For a moment  try to put these ideas to the world of business, does it make sense to think that the activity, objectives, strengths and weaknesses of a product or a company, depends on the structure that supports it? Can you make moves a company taking advantage of the structural deficiencies of the competition?

   As in chess, how to "play" of each company, is conditioned and directed from its structure.

     In chess to read the kind of game that asks each structure is basic, in a company, knowing what allows (or not) to the structure, can make the difference between success and failure.

   Subsequent posts will continue to develop these ideas. Meanwhile, I leave a position where the structure indicates how to play both sides

 

White plays

Next station "Hope"

 "The most powerful weapon in Chess is to have the next move" (David Bronstein)

   Among the many similarities we can find between business and chess, today I want to talk about one that humanizes both worlds, is the error of "hope".

   Many times, when we are thinking about a move, we start  the calculation of "if you do this, I answer and then you have to answer so ..."

   The error "Hope" is the time that we focus on the responses of the opponent that "I would like"  him to do and do not value all possible answers. In this way we are convinced of the "goodness" of our play based on the answers that we want the other to do, and of course, "the other" can do that or might not.

    This seems a truism, but  it is an error that occurs also in professional life.

   I have participated in brainstorming product launch where the type arguments wielded "if competition does this or that, we are benefited in this regard ..." and coincidentally or not all possible "moves" of competition we were driving us as winners. Not to sound great Guru, but I can say that in real life competitive market, not all possible answers always given to us as winners.

   Both in chess as in the analysis of market impact of the launch of a new product, like almost any other area of the business which involves a third player, the solution to this type of error is the objectivity the realistic assessment of your position and possibilities, as in get " being on the shoes" of the other, think like you "your opponent" looking his best choice, and once you find it, think an antidote to it.

   When you play a lot of games, at the end you understand that the rivals are determined to do what they consider best for them, so you have to learn to think as if you were them, you learn to look critically, objectively evaluating your options, without overestimate (or under-estimate, that it is also a big mistake)

   On this particular point, the improvement as a player comes when you are able to apply a filter of realism to your options, playing Based on the quality of your decisions and not in  errors of your rival

   From the point of view of a marketing department is the same approach: the best product is one that meets a need, it is in a cost-benefit proportionality and also competition, doing his best, takes long to replicate (or no can do). A product that is based on competition do what suits us, we will waste time, effort and money for minimal product life to be quickly offset by a better product (the best move)

Steinitz and market competition

"The hardest game to win is a won game" (Lasker)

  Speaking to a friend and co-worker, he asked me why I liked both chess ... He didn't understand this passion, I replied:

"Chess is a sport where you face the problems posed by the opponent you while you try to solve looking for the ways to provocate a problem to him so you get increased benefits lead you to victory, and where a error leads to backtrack all the way gone, do not tell me it's not exciting "

  He, as a marketing expert, understood at first, Why?  This idea  don't remind you to the marketing approaches a competitive market?

    Think, for example, in the mobile phone market, the different movements of any of the operators are intended to attract customers, that in the market at present, are in the customer base of a company from the competition ... marketing of any of them is aimed at creating "problems" (stealing customers) in the competition, while trying to solve the competitors posed to it (suffers theft attempts).

If you remember, in my previous post talked about the rules of Steinitz.

    In a very rude summary of them, you could say that when you are on advantage , you have to go for the opponent taking advantage of their weaknesses. If you are on "equal"  look for getting benefits ... and if we are worse, we have to defend ourselves understanding that maybe we have to sacrifice something in this defense

Think for a moment about what Microsoft has done since the '80s: Starting with a disadvantage to Apple for a product from my point of view clearly inferior, knew to hold and read your competitor's weakness.

     Apple believed in the quality of your product, itself closed in a specific environment.
 

    Microsoft reading this created the opportunity, allied with IBM, and due to that,  became a defensive less position in a better position to develop a competitive edge. What did it do there? Continued to attack strongly eliminating rival companies and products, to almost (or in many cases exceed) monopoly situation (in terms chess, given checkmate every opponent).

 A closest example we recently found in Spain.

    Until 4-5 years ago, in the mobile phone market in Spain, there was a clear picture in which there was a company (Movistar) clearly leading in market share, other (Vodafone) competing in a worthy 2nd Position also clearly differentiated, and another (Orange) had third place well away from the second.

  Since then the two main companies have made moves "classic" too conservative ... or in terms of a game, very defensive, did not attempt to keep attacking, defending the lead played. The third operator played hard trying to exploit the weaknesses of their two main rivals.

    Thanks to this air that gave competitors Orange, Orange has cut substantially disadvantage Vodafone market share, being now in technically equal, but with very different trends.

   Movistar maintains its top spot thanks to the enormous advantage gained, but would do well to avoid being distracted, looking for support in their strengths and attacking weaknesses of the competition, if you do not want to get into a fight for supremacy in the medium term.

   What  Steinitz said  in the nineteenth century is still true not only for playing chess also it can have the same readings in a business school than, for example, "the art of war."