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 ...

The Soul of Chess

"The pawns are the soul of chess" (Philidor)

   In chess we call structure to the provision that adopt pawns of both sides on the board.

    For the particularity of movement of pawns that can't back the way they came and eat in a lateral move, the pawns are pieces that can be locked so that real walls constructed to limit the game to other pieces.

   According to these distribution can talk both closed positions where there is a significant amount of pawns and in more or less static state or open positions where the board has a clear image of pawns, either because they are not or because they are in their initial positions.

    Visually I think you can easily distinguish

   A concept that comes in chess as you progress in learning is that the structure marks how you should play. This is an idea that has already worked in the century XVIII by Philidor and with more or less ornaments is still in force today.

    The pawn structure is relatively stable and therefore largely determines the strategic nature of the position. Weaknesses in the pawn structure, once created, are usually permanent and often are arguments to attack by the contrary.

   In the absence of these structural deficiencies, it is not possible to classify a pawn formation as good or bad - because it depends on the position of other pieces. However, the pawn formation determines the overall strategy of the players greatly.

    For a moment  try to put these ideas to the world of business, does it make sense to think that the activity, objectives, strengths and weaknesses of a product or a company, depends on the structure that supports it? Can you make moves a company taking advantage of the structural deficiencies of the competition?

   As in chess, how to "play" of each company, is conditioned and directed from its structure.

     In chess to read the kind of game that asks each structure is basic, in a company, knowing what allows (or not) to the structure, can make the difference between success and failure.

   Subsequent posts will continue to develop these ideas. Meanwhile, I leave a position where the structure indicates how to play both sides

 

White plays

Next station "Hope"

 "The most powerful weapon in Chess is to have the next move" (David Bronstein)

   Among the many similarities we can find between business and chess, today I want to talk about one that humanizes both worlds, is the error of "hope".

   Many times, when we are thinking about a move, we start  the calculation of "if you do this, I answer and then you have to answer so ..."

   The error "Hope" is the time that we focus on the responses of the opponent that "I would like"  him to do and do not value all possible answers. In this way we are convinced of the "goodness" of our play based on the answers that we want the other to do, and of course, "the other" can do that or might not.

    This seems a truism, but  it is an error that occurs also in professional life.

   I have participated in brainstorming product launch where the type arguments wielded "if competition does this or that, we are benefited in this regard ..." and coincidentally or not all possible "moves" of competition we were driving us as winners. Not to sound great Guru, but I can say that in real life competitive market, not all possible answers always given to us as winners.

   Both in chess as in the analysis of market impact of the launch of a new product, like almost any other area of the business which involves a third player, the solution to this type of error is the objectivity the realistic assessment of your position and possibilities, as in get " being on the shoes" of the other, think like you "your opponent" looking his best choice, and once you find it, think an antidote to it.

   When you play a lot of games, at the end you understand that the rivals are determined to do what they consider best for them, so you have to learn to think as if you were them, you learn to look critically, objectively evaluating your options, without overestimate (or under-estimate, that it is also a big mistake)

   On this particular point, the improvement as a player comes when you are able to apply a filter of realism to your options, playing Based on the quality of your decisions and not in  errors of your rival

   From the point of view of a marketing department is the same approach: the best product is one that meets a need, it is in a cost-benefit proportionality and also competition, doing his best, takes long to replicate (or no can do). A product that is based on competition do what suits us, we will waste time, effort and money for minimal product life to be quickly offset by a better product (the best move)

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."

Precursors of modernity

    Talk about precursors in business or in a sport over 2000 years old is nothing less than a great daring .... But we have to start somewhere and I chose these two characters because I understand that they were the first stones of chess and industry that we met at the s. XX.

Henry Ford  (1863-1947).

    He was the first car manufacturer who used the techniques of mass production and the assembly line, at the same time  perfected the rudimentary previous models. 

   Henry Ford introduced its construction-related developments in series and providing economic benefits to future users (the car went on sale for just $ 200). The main idea of Ford was that if mass produced cars, automobile production costs would be reduced considerably, which also contribute to lower the selling price on the street, a fact which would increase demand, market and profits.

   In early 1908, the first set of his new Ford-T at a single price and market revolutionary, $ 500, quite low compared to the $ 2,000 represented the average price of a car at the time. Success was swift and sales increased fivefold.

  From a strictly business point of view, the secret of Henry Ford was to have managed to combine three decisive factors.

• Standardization and mass production of all the parts that made up the vehicle
• The second factor was giving their workers a wage high enough (his competitors said "exorbitant "), five dollars a day, which achieved two purposes at once: to increase the standard of living of these, that immediately went to buy a Ford-T, and further lower selling prices. Employees&customers.
• Finally, Ford established a nationwide dense network of dealers, sellers and agents advertising experts, and encouraged other revolutionary payment system: the car buying in installments.

 

 

Wilhelm Steinitz (1836-1900).

 World Champion from 1886 to 1894. Defender of the scientific methods applied these as the key to solve the problems presented on the board.

   First dissected positions with its components, separating the essential signs which might be drawn solid strategic principles ... this seems so simple but it was a turning point in the history of chess.

   Calls "Steinitz rules" are a set of precepts that marked a major change in the game. These ideas-guide explains the various scenarios of fighting chess and answer basic and fundamental questions: why you win?, why you lose?, why  attack?, when attacking?, why defend?, how to attack?, how to defend?, what is the balance?, what to do in a balanced situation? and ultimately provides a framework where thinking and creativity of each player can develop and manifest successfully 

A summary of the essentials of the same:

• The dominant side can attack, and must do so, otherwise, you risk losing the advantage. You must attack the weakest point of the opponent's position.

• The effect of the weak and strong points is crucial, everything else is of secondary importance.

• Principle of proportion: The plan is everything and the time issue has secondary importance. In general the "rhythm" of the attack to be reduced more as less pronounced the advantage.

• The one on the defense has to want to defend and make temporary concessions

• Throughout balanced position, the two sides maneuver trying to tip the balance in their favor. But a balanced position also generates other balanced, if players play with precision. Must play to maintain the cooperation of their pieces 

  These rules are  fully applicable to acompetitive market, where the position of the company has market advantage, should not relax and keep "attacking" to prevent competition regain ground. In the next post we will see examples in both directions