Chess in Professional Life. Bad plan is better than No plan. Communication is key.

In the picture above chess prodigy Samuel Reshevsky performs a simultaneous exhibition against adults.?

That's a fairly typical chess event where a professional chess player, usually a Grandmaster (GM), competes against players with significantly lower ratings. Typically, the GM would win over 90% of these games.

However, there are rare occasions when multiple GMs conduct simultaneous exhibitions against weaker opponents, making moves in turns. This means they can't consult with each other and don't see the previous move made by their partner. Interestingly, this often results in an easy win for the weaker players on the other side.?

While individually strong players, the GMs lack a shared strategy, moving pieces inefficiently without a coordinated plan. For instance, one Grandmaster chose to launch an attack on pawns on the left side of the board, while the other opted to target the opponent's King on the right side. Consequently, they found themselves constantly moving the same piece back and forth, losing tempo on the board. This emphasises the importance of having an agreed-upon plan before execution, even if it's not perfect.

Drawing a parallel to project/product/strategy work, before diving into execution, defining a strategy, goals, and a plan is crucial. Although it might be tempting to make decisions on the fly, developing the habit of planning first can significantly reduce poor decisions and increase the chances of success. As mentioned in a previous post about simulating scenarios before execution, this exercise can reveal if a project isn't worth starting if the planning phase exposes flaws.

By the way, this chess example also highlights the importance of communication. If those GMs were allowed to talk to each other and coordinate their approach, it would likely result in a more standard 90%+ win rate.

When we collaborate with competent individuals but fail to communicate effectively, it's akin to a scenario where a few Grandmasters play without consulting each other. Consequently, they end up losing to much weaker opponents whose moves are well-coordinated, forming part of a unified plan, even if it may not be the most optimal one.

This chess analogy also brings to mind a popular statement in professional life: Almost any decision is better than no decision at all.?

Attempting to mitigate all possible risks, especially in larger organisations, can lead to a state where no one makes a decision. At some point, this can cause more damage to the project, customer experience, employee morale, etc., than almost any bad decision.

In chess, this situation is called 'Zeitnot' (which comes from the German language) or 'Time trouble.' Most errors happen at this stage, and some players get completely paralyzed and lose by time.?

It's better to make a suboptimal move but keep a chance to win (as the opponent can make a mistake too) rather than accept inevitable defeat with 0:00 remaining on your clock.?

In my experience, chess players who often run out of time in competitions might lack confidence in real life. However, delving into this aspect is a separate topic we can explore later if there is interest.?

#chessinprofessionallife #chess #career #digital #it #timetrouble #communicationiskey #planning