No excuses

Do not find fault, find a remedy (Henry Ford)

   At the time of transfer of the former director of marketing for his successor, he wished him luck and gave him three letters saying that when you face a real crisis then open the first one, that when he got to meet a second  big problem open the second, and keep the third to attack a third critical problem. Thanked with detail the new director took the 3 letters and put them away. 

  Time passed and became the first extreme situation, cornered decided to open the first letter that read: "Blame your predecessor." He did so and saved the situation. Later he found a new problem that could not resolve, so he opened the second letter: "Blame your team." Again allowing work forward. Then came a third crisis that only found the third one as a solution, it said: "Start typing 3 letters".

   This is a typical story that appears in equipment management courses. The first time I heard it I thought of the incredible ability we have people making excuses and take balls out and how much it costs us to recognize errors. 

   This story has several versions or even you can give some orientation depending to the course you want, but I'm staying with this: This speaks of the assumption of consequences of self-deception (How many times self-convinced of the excuses we built?), to buy time wirh excuses base, the need to look at yourself because there comes a time when the excuses are not needed and doesn't work ... you can even read in terms of ethics within the company.

   In chess can fall into this, we can convince others and even ourselves in that game or the tournament had bad luck, I had a headache, had not slept well, had a fly distracted me or that the moon was in waning ... the reality is very stubborn and always eventually agree. 

  Of course, we are human and we have ups and downs, we get sick and can we sleep badly, but these things should not use them as placeholders for not face ourselves. If we look honestly at ourselves looking for the why, we will have taken the first step to improve ... something else usually makes the ball bigger and that the blow stronger reality.

   We don't lose or win due it was penalised a penalty unfair or because someone slipped when launching the decisive triple or because the sun was over the face or blowing wind. We do it because we made a series of decisions and our opponent takes other, as the balance between each other, and the outcome. 

   Chess allows us not only unexcused external review the consequences of what we do but it also allows us to compare the reasoning processes on an equal footing with others: In one board position different people choose different  valid options under its various schemes reasoning, personality, circumstances or knowledge, which can enrich us with these other visions expanding our own views and diagrams.

   Companies spend lots of money on courses for their managers to develop (among others) these skills, both self-criticism as the revision of their reasoning and management processes... as a chess player  I think I have lucky to explore these fields with something I like as much as chess.

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

How I used the chess to win a bet in the office?

"A player who is surprised is half beaten" (Proverb)

   At this time I worked in the Strategic  marketing department of a large company Mobile.

    The situation came just after launching a new range of price plans that showed some aggressiveness within the schemes that existed in the market these days. In the "launch day", our director called us for a meeting and invited us to think about the answers that could give our main competitor.

   In the round of the interventions, my comrades talked about classical schemes managing  the price per minute, and the amounts of Mb or minutes to be included in the offer, respecting fringes morning-afternoon-evening-weekend

   When I had to speak, I thought as I do during a game of chess ... putting myself in the place of my opponent, trying to think in terms of what would be the best for him, trying to take advance avoiding his best options

   Using this scheme I thought: Right now we have a larger market share (which in chess could be assimilated with an advantage) Our offer is focused to maintain the same way consolidating the advantage, if I was "my opponent" try to break this dynamic, so I should not make a move conservatively to keep the situation (fight scheme price within the same ideas), try to find counterplay to see if they can find weakness in the position of the side that has the advantage ... this requires aggressive action, surprise, not without risks, but in the end you have to catch up.
 

  My answer, following this reasoning chess, was that a family would fare spread the "promoted" hours in different bands, ie, if the "traditional" was to provide 6-8 hours of morning / afternoon / evening would let something like take 3 morning and 3 in the afternoon .... I thought it could be,  without an analysis of returns, something he had not offered by anyone on the market until this time and could attract attention, and, above all, could baffle the competition .... By doing this, they'd get counterplay with which, taking risks, could return to the fight for customers.

   The reaction of all my colleagues was "you have no idea", "how it shows you do not know anything about pricing", "the business case would never profitable" "absurd"

   To settle the matter, I proposed to make a little bet to see who was closer to the type of response. All of them accepted.

   A month later, the business proposal from the competitor was based on the distribution of hours in 2 bands of 4 hours, with their restrictions, but gave the client a flexibility that no one else offered that time ..... I took a few coffees with money from the bet

    The other consequence was that competition began to get more customers, getting cut our market share, which led us to "copy" your offer ... using chess terms, we lost the lead and our lead was in danger

   In this anecdotal situation  I used schemes any chess player, no matter his level, has internalized:

• Situation analysis (what is on the market and what's not)
• DO NOT underestimate the opponent (always think about what would be your best guess, and it is assumed that you will make the best choice for him)
• The principle that when you have an advantage you have to play trying to limit the opponent's counterplay capacity, and is at a disadvantage when you have to play aggressively to try to generate weaknesses in the opposite
• NO complacency in a better position,  because all we play games that have been taking advantage and we've  lost due to "relax a moment" or by an badly-timed error letting recover our rival.

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

How to use the match Anand-Carlsen to promote the local chess?

He that would have the fruit must climb the tree. (saying)

   Following the post where I talked about the match between Anand and Carlsen I've recived many very good comments, that I can only deeply thank. During these comments has made a  ​​"hard" prior analysis of product release from the marketing point of view (which, as we all know, is more than just making announcements)

• It's seen the potential of the product: The duel has a sporty and emotional potential quite high.
• There are intangibles associated with the ability to generate a myth.
• Quite a global collective will be watching the same event.
• There is a target in the medium-long term,  where this event is included.
• They look at how little the difficulties "of watching"  of the event for the uninitiated in the game.
• For the ultimate goal of promoting chess, this madtch can be a "point of atention" but not enough, we need to surround him with something more.
• It's tough to get a place in mass media outlets to increase the public.
• If achieved this slot in medias, what approach should be given to have a positive effect?

   In the current post I propose a personal idea of how to try to exploit this particular event (of course are totally debatable, expandable and can improve). As I said I think the best way for the popularization and consolidation of chess in the schools, with the inclusion of specific subjects and practice as a school sport. Go with the political establishment awareness of the benefits that can bring chess in personality formation and development of the skills of the students.

  A federal level I consider the need involvement in this regard:  arguments and people prepared to raise it are not lacking in the various levels of government (local, regional, national or European) can work agreements. Chess is not only dedicated to ask subsidies, is willing and able to contribute to society with specific aspects and benefits.

   Returning to the specific issue of the match between Anand and Carlsen, if I were in some federation and would be working the publicity campaign ... but it escapes me what specific plans they have and the approach they're working. Here I will focus on what is in the hands of any of us, our own environments. I would use this match as an excuse to raise awareness: we can not expect someone who does not know what this understand or value the subtleties and wonders they can do on the board, but it's possible call attention to approaching someone interested.

   As a first concrete proposal I can think of that can arrange hearings in clubs (ideally several) where either follow the games live or analyze and discuss the last game played (by days and hours) These analyzes can be staged so that without getting into technical nuances can convey to someone not chess that behind every move (or possibility) there is a world. This requires someone with "not a lot of" chess knowledge but someone with the ability to convey emotion and connect easily without getting lost in technicalities.

   In parallel to this can be arranged simultaneous, courses for children, courses for parents to see their children start to play and can do something with them, previous talks presenting the match talking about the characteristics of the players, etc ... In the schools are can make this activity as something that parents and children can do together outside of school hours in their own "neighborhood".

  Maybe it isn't very different from what we've tried from the various clubs, I think the difference may be to involve local media .... This is where the striking use of the event, which is global and can approach the local level:

Before to the dates, start a campaign presentation:

• Who are the opponents?
• How do they differ in styles? (here you can use to convey that, as in other sports, there isn't a unique style, such as a "no-chess player" could think)
• Why this match is special?

   Once it has begun, preparing press releases and appearances on radio to explain the various activities, put in nontechnical language what happened in that game , what can happen in the next. 

   When finished you can make it the same summarizing what happened, analyzing consequences, showing what has brought... 

   If this is done "well" and explain language is achieved to reach the "no-players" then...we would get to talk about chess in local media for two months (which could approach people to the clubs), and maybe get someone in the media considers continuing collaboration.

   What I think is important here is the working together of different clubs and players. Depending on the size of cities is more or less easy, but I think it is important for:

• Share Logistics and tasks: Resource Optimization pure and simple
• Give sense of closeness: Chess is not something exclusive to "who is" is something that is in your neighborhood and you can join your neighbors
• Do not split the target audience: Not the same join 2 people in each of the 4 clubs in a city (for example) that gather to 8 in one location.
• To the local media is always easier to access if you have something worked between various entities (and make no mistake, it is work that should do us) with a commitment to continuity.
• Always more positive to show that we are united in a common goal and not seek interests. Let our sports rivalries are healthy and do not prevent us from working together.

   Obviously it is not easy, it requires hard work, knocking on many doors and make an important exercise of generosity and altruism . Requires you really want to try and don't take refuge in that" it is very difficult" and to doing well a slow work in the medium term is required: Yes, it's difficult, yes, work is in the medium term, but if not try to take advantage events like this, we can not complain that none open doors to develop planned and serious work.

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

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