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