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."