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 

 

Galicia in mourning

  I know this is not neither Chess nor Business, I know that deviates from the theme of the blog and I apologize if you ever find inappropriate ..... but that's what I need to say

    Both in Chess as the world of business everything loses all meaning if we forget that above all there are always people and feelings.

Negra Sombra 

(Rosalía / Carlos Núñez / Luz Casal)

Where are we?

"Good positions do not win games, good moves itself" (G-Abrahams)

   Continuing with the previous entries we will try to implement marketing imagination and spirit in order to get sponsorship for the chess world. When we play a game and we face the decision of the moves, first of all, we need to evaluate the position remaining after the play of the opponent.

   Very briefly the steps would be:

•  We see what has moved.
•  Detecting which are direct threats.
•  See how to change the situation of the pieces as a result of this movement.
•  Check how it affects the plan we had planned and if we have to change.

   In the second part we compare the structure looking for strengths and weaknesses of both  own and rival, and value the gameplay possibilities that have the pieces on the board (which pieces are most active, which ones to improve or what pieces of hand can make worsen their situation and what they give us the most problems)

   If we do this previous analysis, the odds of finding the best plan increase significantly, the move to make would be the consequence of the plan we decided to follow (remember the SWOT analysis mentioned in the previous post).

   That said, we have to evaluate the position in which we find:

   Currently, chess has good reputation ... is always good to say that you play chess, nobody looks like a crazy thing, and it is normal that you consider in the category "the smart". Likewise, nearly all are seeing it as a game and not a sport, it still has the aura of some smart people, but rather "Geeks".

   Some time ago, in a talk on Twitter on this topic, the other person closed the conversation by saying that chess is like poetry, very nice, very cool, which is quite good, but at the time to spend money... how many people buy poetry? Chess is something that  is considered minority, even though almost everyone has been in front of a chess board sometime in their life, even if in the same way that has been before the Parcheesi board, so they do not find anything strange .

   At this point we have some strengths and some weaknesses? We play this game.. are we smarter than others or simply are some geeks? Surely any of those things, but I do have to be aware that we are perceived as well, and if anything teaches advertising or marketing in general is that it is more important how you perceive something that it really is.

   In the mass media (sports or general) there is little room for chess news, although in almost all them exists the typical problem in  hobbies section. The recent Tal Memorial Super Tournament, with several of the best current players How many news or reviews in  "not  specialized" newspapers / websites are you read? I do not talk of covers, but I think we could aspire to any room regularly, at least comparable to that seen for other sports "minority"

  On the other hand, if today questions down the street or in the office to "not chess people" about chess players names... what do you think would be the most mentioned?

   I took the test and, in this order were, Kasparov, Karpov and Fischer

   Coincidence? What do these players have in common to be in the collective memory?, Any current player may occupy a similar status, What would be required? Unfortunately now I'm just thinking international players, the same people (not chess) asked if they could tell me some Spanish player: one happened to mention Paco Vallejo and other (curious case his youth) quoted me Arturito Pomar, and the other use a "poker face" like answer.

   Yes, I know that I have a pair of post just throwing questions, but to achieve a difficult goal wer have to understand that there are difficult questions raised (and sure I have left many), and give answers before complacency of our strengths: When you resolve threats and weaknesses, our strengths we should give "decisive advantage". 

The original post was published in Spanish in my collaboration with the website Chesslive.com 

Think & Do

"The laws of Chess do not allow a free choice: you have to move like it or not" (Lasker)

   I firmly believe that chess is an effective and useful tool  in the preparation of a professional who aspires to be useful in their daily work. As commented in my presentation, i'm going to alternate posts with analysis and discussion , with other concepts in which try to relate both worlds (chess and businesses).

  In all lectures / courses that I have done on marketing or project management began in one way or another telling what a SWOT analysis (Strengths-Weaknesses-Threats-Opportunities), presenting it as a key element for the development of the we wanted to do. I can only agree ... if done right.

   In almost every analysis I have seen throughout my professional life, you tend to overestimate their own strengths, minimize competition, underestimate our weaknesses increasing competition one: the Business Case "have to go" because this is good and can not be stopped because the figures do not say it in Excel.

  Here we forget the objective assessments, we get carried away by our subjective and because we are pre-convinced of the result not wanting to see that we could be wrong, or at least is necessary to revise the approach.

  The analysis of a chess position not unlike virtually nothing of a SWOT analysis: see what's from the point of view of what our strengths and the weaknesses of the opponent to see where we have to attack, review the threats that we rival and tried to cover our weaknesses, and as the weight of each factor will make a move or another.

  Every player has fallen many times in the mistake of overestimating or underestimating the strengths of the opponent, and we have all lost a lot of games for this. The development of a player, among other things, is based on the ability to achieve the objective assessments in the playing positions

   Let's consider the chess board as our training camp to make SWOT analysis: working objectivity, the correct reading of the conditions and those of others, we can develop a "sixth" sense to find hidden threats and can fail to see where our seemingly good position. Finally, working our ability to search for opportunities, even in complicated situations where there seems to be nothing.

  All these points are important in itself, but I'm focusing on the last one personally think it's an important nuance.

  Chess forces you to think, but also to act, we can not "in pass" the move just because it doesn't ring the bell ... and on top you have limited time.

  Many times both in professional situations and in the derivatives of the game we were out of options, we were blocked with no ability to react to the situations. Like all,  imaginative capacity to find solutions and answers to complicated situations can be trained, you can work from the standpoint of constructive forces you to find "something".

  The problem is that in the office is playing "live fire" and be answered faster than we would like or need to find an answer yes or yes and if not used, often we do not know how to start looking.

  The best professionals that I've met are precisely those who could manage in these situations without blocking. There are many ways to prepare for this, and I think one of the best is just chess.

The original post was published in Spanish in my collaboration with the website Chesslive.com 

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