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 ...