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