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