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."

Precursors of modernity

    Talk about precursors in business or in a sport over 2000 years old is nothing less than a great daring .... But we have to start somewhere and I chose these two characters because I understand that they were the first stones of chess and industry that we met at the s. XX.

Henry Ford  (1863-1947).

    He was the first car manufacturer who used the techniques of mass production and the assembly line, at the same time  perfected the rudimentary previous models. 

   Henry Ford introduced its construction-related developments in series and providing economic benefits to future users (the car went on sale for just $ 200). The main idea of Ford was that if mass produced cars, automobile production costs would be reduced considerably, which also contribute to lower the selling price on the street, a fact which would increase demand, market and profits.

   In early 1908, the first set of his new Ford-T at a single price and market revolutionary, $ 500, quite low compared to the $ 2,000 represented the average price of a car at the time. Success was swift and sales increased fivefold.

  From a strictly business point of view, the secret of Henry Ford was to have managed to combine three decisive factors.

• Standardization and mass production of all the parts that made up the vehicle
• The second factor was giving their workers a wage high enough (his competitors said "exorbitant "), five dollars a day, which achieved two purposes at once: to increase the standard of living of these, that immediately went to buy a Ford-T, and further lower selling prices. Employees&customers.
• Finally, Ford established a nationwide dense network of dealers, sellers and agents advertising experts, and encouraged other revolutionary payment system: the car buying in installments.

 

 

Wilhelm Steinitz (1836-1900).

 World Champion from 1886 to 1894. Defender of the scientific methods applied these as the key to solve the problems presented on the board.

   First dissected positions with its components, separating the essential signs which might be drawn solid strategic principles ... this seems so simple but it was a turning point in the history of chess.

   Calls "Steinitz rules" are a set of precepts that marked a major change in the game. These ideas-guide explains the various scenarios of fighting chess and answer basic and fundamental questions: why you win?, why you lose?, why  attack?, when attacking?, why defend?, how to attack?, how to defend?, what is the balance?, what to do in a balanced situation? and ultimately provides a framework where thinking and creativity of each player can develop and manifest successfully 

A summary of the essentials of the same:

• The dominant side can attack, and must do so, otherwise, you risk losing the advantage. You must attack the weakest point of the opponent's position.

• The effect of the weak and strong points is crucial, everything else is of secondary importance.

• Principle of proportion: The plan is everything and the time issue has secondary importance. In general the "rhythm" of the attack to be reduced more as less pronounced the advantage.

• The one on the defense has to want to defend and make temporary concessions

• Throughout balanced position, the two sides maneuver trying to tip the balance in their favor. But a balanced position also generates other balanced, if players play with precision. Must play to maintain the cooperation of their pieces 

  These rules are  fully applicable to acompetitive market, where the position of the company has market advantage, should not relax and keep "attacking" to prevent competition regain ground. In the next post we will see examples in both directions

Practical lesson of Managment

It's not a move, even the best move, that you must seek, but a realizable plan  (Eugene Znosko-Borovsky)

   For a little over a year and a half I worked as adjutant to the network Director in a important international mobile phone company. It was the peak of deployment, where the objectives of installation and commissioning of the air base stations (basic elements to provide mobile coverage) were very aggressive both in quantity and in compliance with the necessary speed, as this deployment could assume a great advantage from the standpoint competitive.

    I remember a particular day in which we were to meet separately with the leaders of each of the deploy areas for reviewing its objectives and resource management both financial and workload of each of the different companies working with us.

    Before the entry of each of them was the manager told me:

"He is so, has a concept of how it should work this way and therefore we must expose and reach this conclusion  this way"

   That day I learned a lesson managment practice hard to match in any MBA: communication skills combined with a strong knowledge of the people he worked with, and a very clear idea of ​​what he had to get to each of them: No there are only different ways of achieving the same goal, but the communication of the same objective should be different.

   That day I was clear about the difference between "ordering" and "managment" also helped me to see the difference in giving the message aseptic, realistic and to adapt it to convey the message to really get to each partner.

   The aim of the "game" he was playing with each was the same, but the approach was totally different.

   The World champion Emanunel Lasker (1868-1941) said he had to find the best play against a specific opponent, considering its features and style of play, which the best move objectively speaking (the truth "pure" )  is not always  the best practical option (the message conveyed and really assimilated by the receiver).

    In chess we consider these things every time you start a game from the first move we consider both our own style of play as the opponent, trying to find an opening and an approach that suits play our game and the same time you make your opponent to play uncomfortable

On the other hand, sometimes it is the case that in a certain position can find several options objectively valid and you have to choose ... there is usually no one that is clearly better than the other, then choose the option that think leads to play favorable positions or, if we know our opponent  we can look for options that are objectively worse for us, but letting to a game that suits worse to the style  of play of our opponents.

    The preparation of competitive chess (even at the amateur level) leads us to get used to the analysis not only of matter itself (message to convey, aim "aseptic"),  also to adapt that matter the opponent or, speaking in the business environment, to suit the different partners that we have in the project or specific meeting, reviewing how to modulate the messages to be transmitted and how to achieve the goal.

Talk with your pieces (2)

   If you remember the previous post  "Talk to your pieces" in a position where White had to make a decision at a key moment of the game, surely that decision would mark the evolution of it.

The particular position was

Here, indeed, there are only two options that can be played: eating with the pawn that is in column "a" or the pawn that is in column "c":

 

1) The first option is following the general principles of chess:  eat with pawn  "a", guiding the pawns into the center of the board, and is a right choice, but that does not allow more game than wait to see what the Black want to do. With this move, the white pieces remain passive without a clear destination.

2) The second option is the result of dialogue with the pieces, inquiring about where they would like to do, where they would be "happier":

• Starting with the Queen, we see that is closed, and to develop their strength, need squares where to play. If white eat with pawn "a",the Queen has to go to the open space that offers the kingside, having to use 2-3 moves to try something. If on the contrary,  eats with pawn "c", the Queen plays automatically, to be able to press on the pawn that is in the c5 square once the Knight moves. Queen asks to eat with pawn "c"
• Continuing on the Knight, he wants to go to c5, for it will begin to go through a4 square, but of course, if eaten with pawn "a" it is not supported to go to c5, requires that the Queen has open the way to attack on that point. The Knight also calls eat with pawn "c"
• The Rook is in column "a" think that if eaten with pawn "a" column has to fight against the black Rook at a disadvantage, because after playing Bb7 black, can lead the other rook (1 move ), while he supports the Queen who is less useful for these purposes. The Rook also calls eat with pawn "c"
• The Bishop has the diagonal likes, don't matter which pawn you eat, it gives a bit like which of the two options is played
• Finally, we asked the pawns, and "a- pawn" think better eating of "c" so, facing a possible end, you are clear of rivals pawns to try to crown, the "c" also prefer eat, because with the Knight in front, not much to do. The only one who does not like the idea is to pawn the column "d" that needs the support of the pawn "c" and that if he leaves the column "b" is unprotected.

  After this long dialogue, and pure democracy, the white player chose option 2, thus being able to actively play (the game followed by pressing the c5 pawn with Na4, and after moving to c4, got the support of bishop on d4, allowing the end, the horse was what he wanted, threatening the center weak squares and black castle).

Position 4 moves later

   The general principles, and in this point thinking as business, are necessary and are useful as guides, but we must talk to teams to see if that rule applies or not in a given situation, and especially to get the maximum potential people and their skills ... choosing option 1 (general rule) would have a white Queen  and a Knight with a lot of potential, but they can't play, are not allowed to do everything they could to give the team.

Talk with your pieces

"Help your pieces so that they can help you" (Paul Morphy)

  When you learn to play internalize a relation on the value of the pieces, that if the Queen 9 points, Rook 5,  Knight and Bishop 3 and Pawn 1.

    In practice you learn that these values ​​are not absolute, and depends on the position, depends on the placement of the other pieces, is when we talk about the relative value of the pieces: A bishop or a rook on open items, columns and diagonals where develop their potential are determinants pieces really important , but in a game with many pawns where there is no space, are pieces that are prisoners, with great potential but not actual ability to be important.

   One of the most repeated phrases as you evolve in your game is "talk to your pieces," understands where to place to fulfill their potential, find positions where the game developed by your pieces exceeds what can develop pieces rival: this is very typical in games where bishops have been changed by knights, the side of the bishops try to open position so as to open diagonals for his bishops develop their game, while the one with the knight attempts to lock the position advantage that knights can "jump" over the Pawns.

    If the same message is translated to the companies we see a parallel with the team management.

   In my professional carrier I have met with managers and directors both very good and very bad, and the distinction isn't based in technical skills or knowledge, I do regarding the management of their teams

    A bad boss (from this point of view) is that you don't understand and therefore do not take advantage of the potential of the people who is responsible, is one who is mere executors of tasks, not understanding the characteristics of each. They are characterized by being either too patronizing (directing each step without allowing a "new way of working") not having dialogue ... don't talk with his pieces

    The boss who speaks with his team, he understands how different can make each one,  covers possible deficiencies in knowledge or in time  management with the quality of development of the full potential of everyone in the team, doing the job much better and probably faster...  I think objectively this one could be considered a good boss.

   I give you an example of a recent game, where in a moment of decision, the player was driving white pieces has to choose between 2 main options:

What do you think about the White move? Why?

Answer and reasoning in the next post

Coordination of pieces

   The coordination of pieces is a basic concept of chess. Since you start playing, someone is insisting that your pieces must be coordinated, and even the most powerfull piece can not play alone,  the action of each piece should be within an overall plan.

    This idea so simple and easy that is, in practice, a little more difficult to implement, and this is one of the elements that sets players on different levels, being able to play all your pieces together towards a common goal is something you work seriously if you want to improve in the chess game.

   It's very typical the error to start playing  searching very specific and fast targets,  reaching a moment in which you realize that you have your pieces totally misplaced and unable to work together.

   Viewing this concept from the point of view of the company, the first ideas that come are on the coordination of the different people who work in a department, and going to a higher level, in the work of various departments to get a company target, in project management, marketing communications with sales forces... 

   This is a concept that we can easily relate to the work of any manager in a company, and whose domain leads professionals to an improvement in the performance of their work.

To ilustar this concept I have chosen two precious games played in  nineteenth century, one of them played by Napoleon Bonaparte