Viewpoint - January 2014

8/13/2019 Viewpoint - January 2014

1/12

Viewpoint is a quarterly thought publication produced by The PRactice.Please send your views and feedback to [email protected] | www.the-practice.net

TheDefenderandTheChallengerLessons from the World Chess Championship

Vol 2 | Issue 4 | January 2014


2/12

Insights from a Game

Playing to Win With Some Differences: Two distinct player profiles yieldvery different board strategies and some implicit lessons for business leaders.

Pressure and Position:How dominant companies and business leaders canmanage the weight of greater market, customer and personal expectations.

Talking Points One Game at a Time:What the post-game conferencesrevealed to us about the players and the power of plain communication.

The Ups and Downs of Celebrity Endorsements:An insightful but yet livelylook at the elements that make, sustain or break endorsement contracts.

Alterpoint:Deception is a common military tactic. But is it morally justifiable?

In November of 2013, a 22-year old Norwegian defeated a 43-year oldChennai native in a game involving 64 squares, to become the secondyoungest winner of the World Chess Championship title. The ten games ofthe Championship captured our collective imagination and somehowmanaged to avoid being completely eclipsed by other news.

The tournament highlighted stark differences between the players - in styleand approach. The defender was experienced but tentative, the challengerless inhibited. It was clear that Vishwanathan Anand felt the pressure ofplaying to the home crowd. For his part, Magnus Carlsen must have beenfully conscious of his opportunity from the beginning. Yet, each tried not to

let it affect his performance inside the glass enclosure. Outside it, they weregracious, honest and practical, in equal measure.

Our contributors use this clash between two chess giants to answer somequestions that are equally relevant outside the world of chess. What aresome elements that determine risk taking propensity? How does one buildthe mental toughness to withstand sustained pressure? How does a leaderdownplay hype while communicating goals and thoughts? And what,beyond winning, counts in the world of endorsements?

What the 2013 World Chess Championship can teach us

about leadership style and strategy, pressure handling, and

communication.


3/12

Playing to Win - With

Some Differences

Going In

The Anand-Carlsen match was billed as a clash of generations with

Viswanathan Anand upholding the legacy of erstwhile stars of aprevious era. In the meantime, Magnus Carlsen of Norway, his youngadversary, had made waves in the chess world by moving into the topspot in the International Chess rankings with an enviable rating of 2870.

To win a game in a world championship match, one has to overcomeresistance, be very resourceful, foresee inevitable complications andwithstand tension by not allowing the opponent to get back into thegame. Technique, physical endurance and confidence all play a keyrole. Concentration must be of the highest level. The combination of allthese factors is very difficult to achieve, though not impossible.

The bale on the chequered board b etween these two players withcontrasting styles has generated enormous interest among the chessfraternity. The statistics regarding their head to head encounters in

classical chess tournaments are interesting. Until that point, they hadplayed each other 29 times with Anand enjoying a 6-3 lead, apart from 20drawn encounters. But the important detail was that Anand had notbeaten Carlsen after his victory over him in London 2010, while he hadgone down twice to Carlsen in 2012.

The challenger was nearly half Anands age. The veteran had a lot ofinvaluable experience. After losing to Gary Kasparov in the WorldChampionship final in New York in 1995, Anand had become a verymature player and was a force to reckon with in high intensity matches.He had demonstrated the stability of his game psyche by beating playerssuch as Kramnik, Shirov, Topalov, Gelfand in a convincing fashion. Hehad also remained very consistently at the top for nearly two decades.

A gripping analysis of the encounter between two chesstitans provides insights into how age, experience and style

fed into their individual strategies. For business leaders, thereis plenty of food for thought embedded in the chess speak.


4/12

Anands achievements in chess were clearly impressive going into thetournament. Playing before the home crowd in Chennai might haveplaced him under greater pressure, since the crowd expectations werehigh. However, he is very resourceful and probably one of the best inaccelerated time controls. Still, a lot hinged on the depth of his openingpreparation with the use of any surprising innovation.

Carlsen, on the other hand, was probably motivated to add the title to

his other achievements as the Worlds No 1 rated player. He had nothingto lose and everything to gain. His planned strategy going in wouldlikely have been to play long games to tire out his senior opponent. Hehad already established himself as one of the strongest players in thechess circuit by winning tournaments with a great degree of consistency.

Differences in Style and Technique

Anand is good with calculations and was expected to have an edge overCarlsen when it came to tackling sharp positions with queens on board.He was expected to aim for positions that gave rise to immense tacticalcomplications. In order to accomplish this, he had to carve out openingpreparations that would allow these tactics to proceed with clinicalaccuracy.

Post-mortem analyses of games in which Anand had beaten Carlsen inthe past supported this. The veteran had defeated the youngster inbales arising out of sacrifices, aack, c ounter aack, and double-edgedpositions, which are Anands forte.

However, Anand also needed to be wary of his young opponents knackfor seemingly strange and unexpected piece manoeuvres.

At the relatively advanced age of 43, it appeared to be difficult for Anandto demonstrate his former vigour and aptitude for calculations in orderto ferret out combinations with accuracy. There is evidence to supportthis conjecture since Carlsen has been known to be uncomfortable inunclear positions that keep changing quickly. Nevertheless, he showedtremendous positional sense and his pieces invariably moved to the right

squares.Anand did not go all out in terms of risk taking but was able to hold hisown in matches. He did not take drastic measures to adjust and adapt toless tried out lines that promise complications. Rather, he preferred tochoose lines where he was comfortable, unless the situation clearlywarranted a different approach. Playing for complications compoundsthe risk factor but one has to resort to this, if it is justified.

Carlsens confidence level was high and he played for a win in allpositions, probably after concluding that he was stronger than hisopponent. It was interesting to see that he wasnt necessarily looking tocurb his natural instincts and sele for safer methods in keeping with thenorms of a premium world championship title match.

Yet, Carlsen never underestimated his opponent and played according to theposition by not being unnecessarily speculative.

He chose openings that have not been tested much at higher levels as well asvariations to lead his opponent into i ndependent play and detours from thebeaten track, as quickly as possible. Taking opponents head on - in popularvariations arising from direct computer analysis - has traditionally not beenhis cup of tea.

The Final Result

Carlsen did well with the black side of Berlin variation of the Ruy Lopez inwhich the queens get exchanged early in the game, leading to lengthypositional manoeuvres.

As Anand was not able to come out with any effective antidote to counter theBerlin wall, he switched to 1.d4 in the laer part of the series but by then,the young challenger had a comfortable 2-point lead. With pressure mount-ing, Anand played an aggressive 9th game but an eventual blunder movedthe score to 3-0 in Carlsens favour. Anand then tried to break the jinx bylashing out with the double-edged Sicilian defence in the 10th round but itwas too late.

The game ended in a draw. Carlsen won 6.5-3.5 in the best of 12 series tobecome the 20th World Chess Champion.

Related thought starters: What factors impact risk taking propensity? Whatcan we use to guide us in taking calculated risks? How does one keeppressure from affecting performance? How do we ensure that we consistentlyplay to our strengths?

DV PrasadDV Prasad is a former national champion and thechief coach and icon for the chess program atTENVIC, a sports consultancy.


5/12

Pressure andPosition

When Vishwanathan Anand sat down for Game 1 of the World ChessChampionship, he had the full weight of hopes and expectations on hisshoulders - the hopes of a home audience rooting for its cerebral heroand the expectations that the rest of the world had of him as thedefending champion.

He managed this as best as he could, showing flashes of brilliance atdifferent points of the tournament, before succumbing to the pressure,and conceding defeat.

As the incumbent or defender, Anand had to deal with more pressurethan Carlsen, proving a truism that runs counter to the laws of physics pressure is greater, closer to and at the top.

The scenario that played out at the World Chess Championship hasmany analogies in todays competitive business environment wheremarket leading companies, or incumbents, have to face the heat ofconsumer and market expectations. Whether it is Apple, Facebook, orGoogle, being an industry leader means that you have the entire worldwatching your every move. It is a paradoxical position to be in adominant spot that is yet tenuous and fragile. One misstep and there areany number of contenders waiting to rush in.

Companies that are dominant in the marketplace have tocontend with more pressure. Are there mechanisms for themand their leaders to beer handle the weight of greatermarket, customer and personal expectations?


6/12

The psychological burden on businesses as they deal with this is notunlike what top players face on game day. Every day brings unrelentingpressure from different quarters analysts, customers, and employees,all expecting and demanding more.

Dominant companies cannot afford to become complacent about their

success. They have to be ready to: (a) Innovate faster than new entrants;(b) Improvise on plans as and when needed; (c) Build the strength andresilience to adapt to change quickly.

This, of course, is easier said than done. Innovation becomes a less thandesirable goal if its results can cannibalize a companys existingproducts. Improvising and changing course is not easy if you are a largecompany and have to take everyone along with you. And if a disruptivetechnology impacts the environment in radical and unanticipated ways,even the best of companies may be unprepared to adapt to the change.

From the challengers point of view, the vulnerability of the incumbent tomarket pressure and expectations creates some interesting opportunities.If they play their cards right, they can grab more market share or layclaim to a niche section of it.

On the individual leadership front, there is again an obvious correlationbetween proximity to the top and pressure. A business leader is answer-able to a large number of stakeholders employees, customers, partners and also responsible for the overall reputation of the company. Thesechallenges, while daunting, can be handled by accepting that pressure ispart of the job and that, on any given day, you will win some and losesome.

In addition, developing a code of functioning can give a leadersomething to fall back on in times of doubt or crisis. I have personallyfound the following tips useful in managing daily and ongoing pressureat work.

Focus on positivity: Everyone feels good about winning, while spiritssag in the face of failure. But these negative emotions can affectperformance. Positive moods produce physical energy and theresilience to persist beyond setbacks.

Promote openness: Set an example by openly discussing mistakesand be receptive to constructive criticism. This will build thestrength you need to handle change and flux in the environment.

Build yourself a good support system: Surround yourself withpositive people and those who believe in the core vision and missioneven if they dont always agree on how to get there.

Dont let yourself choke: Focus on your own strengths and leveragethem extensively. Sometimes, business can be like a game of golf.You are your own worst enemy.

Celebrate failure: Accept the minor setbacks and bales that youmay lose along the way. As long as you are still on course, these

make you stronger and beer prepared for the bigger bales andchallenges that you will encounter.

Having run four marathons last year (including an ultra marathon), I havelearnt that, after the first 15 km or so, there is a huge mental componentinvolved in pushing oneself to the next milestone. This is true in business aswell. A successful sprint through one short stretch does not mean that aleader can withstand the sustained pressure and uphill challenges of the longhaul. Ultimately, the best way to tackle this is to start each day with themindset that you are taking on the strongest and fiercest competitor out there.

Nikhil AroraNikhil Arora is the Vice President and ManagingDirector of Intuit in India.


7/12

Let me begin with a confession. I dont play the game of chess. Nor do Iunderstand the game well enough. But if Magnus Carlsens biographer,Hallgier Opedal, is a chess novice, I too can use the recently concludedWorld Championship as a backdrop to draw lessons on the essence ofplayer communication whether as an incumbent or a challenger.

There are innumerable examples around us today - of political ascendan-cies and defeats, market share gains and losses, victories and failure insports. Everyone loves a winner. The loser may elicit sympathy, but heor she is equally vulnerable to disdain and dismissal. Beyond the actualvictory or loss, self-styled commentators and observers will always havean opinion or two and rarely let go of opportunities to float them.

The world has changed and we are now closer to every event that takes

place today. In the bale for supremacy whether in business, sports orany other walk of life winners are lauded as heroes, but the behaviourof those who lose is equally under scrutiny. Refreshingly, the recentlyconcluded world chess championship steered clear of controversy anddenigration of the protagonists. Is it the nature of the game that lendsitself to such coverage, or did the players tell us something aboutcharacter that is worth emulating?

As a public relations practitioner who has witnessed extreme fanaticismor complete subterfuge, the balanced behaviour of the players left mewanting more. I was suddenly following the game not so much tounderstand the moves, but to absorb the analysis and post game pressconferences that exemplified the best in balanced media reporting and

Talking Points

One Game at a Time


8/12

conduct by spokespeople. The fact that even an indifferent observercould have been drawn in shows a powerful and positive correlationbetween the conduct of spokespeople and their messages, and relatedreporting. Indeed, spokespeople can lead the dance in todays opinion-ated media environment.

Here were two champions. Viswanathan Anand five time world

champion, serious, middle aged, the defender. Magnus Carlsen ashowman, young, the challenger. It was time to do or die, as they say.

Fans and chess aficionados across the world were disappointed with thefirst two games. The champions stood their ground. The stakes werehigh but they would decide the course of the tournament. This was notentertainment. It was a Championship a marathon, not a sprint. This issomewhat alien, yet uerly refreshing at a time when we see businessessuccumbing to the demands of shareholders and analysts to meetquarterly results even in the midst of an intense business restructuring.Our cricketers feel compelled to be prolific entertainers, distracted withso much more going on in the field and beyond. Politicians andintelligentsia make loud motions of delivering on election promises, 24hours after being elected into parliament.

In an age where bravado is deified, Carlsens response to whether hewas scared during the game, might have startled many. All the time,said the winner. Coming from someone in his position, it was a rareacknowledgement of a very human emotion.

In the first game conceded by Vishwanathan Anand, Ian Rogers, theAustralian Grandmaster, wrote in The Hindu, Sometimes, as you lookfar far ahead, you forget to look around. It happens to the best ofleaders. In times of pressure and crisis, it is critical for leaders tomaintain their vision despite the hurdles that loom immediately ahead.

Another telling aspect of the encounter was the mutual respect theplayers had for each other. There is a high degree of awareness of eachothers capabilities. Wins are due to unerring choices that have been metwith sub-optimal responses from rivals, said a commentary. This is incontrast to the vitriol that is common in television debates or on socialmedia. The duo stayed away from beliling each other, instead focusingon comments about their game. At one point when Anand asked ajournalist why he didnt understand English, it was a rare display ofirritation, a tiny blemish in an otherwise perfect set of press conferencesheld after long, tedious days.

These press conferences were handled with utmost dignity andsportsmanship. Carlsen and Anand stuck to message and refused to bedrawn into comparisons and arguments. Clearly, they wouldnt letanyone forget that this was a test of mental endurance that could go onfor some time. Lets look at some of their measured responses: It is too

early to react to every twist and turn in a long match. What maers is whatis happening here. Today was a heavy blow. I will not pretend otherwise.

As the defending champion playing to a home audience against a muchyounger player, the odds were stacked against Anand but the desire to winraged fiercely in him. This was tempered by the the realisation that there wasa chance of losing the title, that his reign was transient. Ever gracious in

defeat, he said, My mistakes clearly did not happen by themselves. [Carlsen]managed to provoke them. For his part, Carlsen played, not to proveanything but in deference to the rules of the great game which required himto press on while he held the advantage in the last game. We often tend toblame extraneous factors for our losses. In this case, Anand took ful l respon-sibility for his defeat when he admied to blundering.

Boring, slow, insipid - this is how many would describe the game of chess.But no one can take away that there is no need for drama everywhere and ineverything. We have to be extremely discerning in how we play the gameand how we lead the dance. There is a choice always. Very few of usexercise that choice.

Nandita LakshmananNandita Lakshmanan is the CEO of The PRactice.


9/12

Magnus Carlsens triumph at the World Chess Championship last yearmust also have gladdened the hearts of many advertisers. The youngNorwegian had already made inroads into the world of endorsements,securing several deals as well as a modeling contract. Good looks,intelligence, a playful personality and social media prowess - its nowonder that Carlsens emergence has shaken up a sport that is used toits grave and nerdy heroes.

For his part, Vishwanathan Anand waged a brave bale and is still arevered and respected icon in India, at least. However, the fact that hefailed to grab the crown is likely to take the shine off his image and causea decline in his endorsement graph.

That sort of decline is normal when it comes to endorser appeal whether it involves movie or sporting celebrities. After all, stars age,looks fade and athletic abilities wane with time.

Winning clearly maers. Except when it doesnt.

Roger Federer, for example, figured on a Forbes list of the worldstop-earning tennis players for 2013. Yet this impressive showing wasmatched by an equally lackluster performance on the court throughmuch of the year. Brands such as Rolex and Credit Suisse, hoping tobenefit from the image that Federer has built as one of the mostdominant players in the sport, are willing to overlook his recentstruggles to regain form. They seek pedigree and solidity in theirendorser and they find liberal helpings of these in the Swiss tennis star.

The Ups & Downs

of CelebrityEndorsements


10/12

The same is true of Brand Tendulkar, which was able to withstand longdry spells at the baing wicket as well as a drawn out pre-retirementperiod. Such is the aura of the man that his endorsement pipeline is notlikely to dry up at any point soon, even after he has put away his bainggloves.

Once you have made it into a certain elite circle of winners, you are there

to stay. For a while, at least. Brands hope that an endorsement will allowthem to benefit from the equity that these players have built over time.This makes for a more stable association than one formed on the crest ofa players victory wave. Waves tend to come crashing down, after all.

All of this presupposes a certain strategic orientation when it comes toendorser selection. That advertisers are examining variables such as fitand relevance when they look for a famous face to promote their brand.

That is certainly true for prominent global brands. National or India-centric brands, however, usually employ a formula that goes like this:Take an aractive and overexposed celebrity preferably a movie star orcricketer - and make them an offer they cant refuse. If the marriage fails,as it often does, then move on to the next aractive and overexposedcelebrity to peddle your product a phone, a pressure cooker, a life

insurance policy.

But internationally recognized brands do spend time and effort infinding the right person. There is art, science and tested methodologiesinvolved in the selection process. Seasoned advertising professionalslock themselves up in the boardroom to weigh the advantages ofselecting one celebrity over the other. Thats not surprising since there isa lot at stake here.

Research has established that the right association can yield very goodresults for brands, with some studies showing an increase of anywherefrom 5 to 20 percent in sales from aligning themselves with a celebrityendorser. Sports celebrities are particularly effective in this respect. Trustand esteem figure highly in the publics perception of sporting heroes.To a greater degree than actors, they are viewed as role models whohave come to their positions in life through hard work and perseverance.

However, while there are demonstrated rewards to adopting thisadvertising tactic, there are financial and business risks linked to it also.

Cost is a big consideration. A brand may spend a good portion of itsadvertising budget in booking a big name endorser but find that it stillhas to expend a significant amount on ads and media purchase. Time isanother key constraint. The big check to the endorser gets the brand onlya limited amount of her time. Unless the brand has a clear plan on howbest to use this time in terms of advertising vehicles and messages this will be money that is not so well spent.

And then there is, of course, the other risk associated with using a celebrityendorser. The risk that he may commit a crime or act of indiscretion anddamage the personal image on which the brand is riding.

This is not an uncommon scenario among sporting heroes and it is easy to seewhy. These individuals tend to be young, highly determined and willing togo to any lengths to win aributes that also lend themselves to other forms

of risky behavior. From Tiger Woods to Oscar Pistorius, sporting lore is filledwith examples of talented people who strayed or lost control for a few briefmoments or more. If nothing else, it demonstrates that they are human at theend of the day.

How brands handle this again depends on the nature of the offense and thebrand itself. Nike chose to retain Woods in its endorser panel even after hismultiple extramarital affairs became very public fodder. In Nikes view, thiswas a personal issue and one that did not reflect on his athletic qualities. Italso did not want to be perceived as playing moral police in this maer andpreferred to stand by the beleaguered golfer. Accenture, on the other hand,dropped Woods very quickly, fearing that the negative publicity wouldcorrode its carefully cultivated image of old-fashioned dependability.

When it comes to celebrity endorsements and particularly with sporting

celebrities there are guidelines but no clear-cut rules. Yes, an endorsementcan help the brand. There are other times when it may not. The whole processis driven by a carefully considered but still subjective analysis of a brandsaributes and the alignment of these with human characteristics. It isreasonable to expect that Magnus Carlsen will now see advertisers lining upto seek endorsements for everything from cars to clothing. It is also reason-able to expect that Vishwanathan Anand will s ee his old friends banks andcomputer companies, for instance come back to him for endorsements. Hemay not have won but he played a good and fair game.

Pratap BosePratap Bose is the Chief Operating Officer of the DDB MudraGroup .


11/12

The Rules of

Deception

A pawn is quickly sacrificed. A bishop is lured from its important role of

defending another piece. A knight falls prey to a disguised maneuver.

Deception tactics - methods to distract, deflect and divert are commonin a good game of chess. It is a strategy that hinges on not revealingones true intention and using the opponents lack of anticipation tomove in for the kill.

Such tactics pervade and are used effectively in field sports as well American football, for instance. Here, the quarterback the central figureof a teams offensive drive uses misleading eye and arm movements totrick the defense into believing that he is going to pass in one directionwhen he really intends to hand the ball to the running back in order torip through a gap in the defense.

Examples of deception abound in war accounts. It isaccepted military practice but is it justifiable?


12/12

In many a past war, according to both mythical and historical accounts,some form of subterfuge has played a key role in enabling victory.Homers Greeks, for example, displayed supreme cleverness in bidingtheir time inside a large wooden horse until that opportune momentwhen they could emerge and decimate the unsuspecting Trojans.

Similarly, in World War II, the Allies used an interesting misinformationtactic that helped alter the course of the war. As they prepared for aninvasion of Italy in 1943, they were looking for ways to throw theGermans off track. In order to do this, they dropped a mans body in thesea near Spain, with documents that described a planned invasion ofGreece, 500 miles away.

Dubbed Operation Mincement, the improbable trick worked, with theother side being completely blindsided as the Allies came in throughSicily instead. The rest, as they say, is history.

Most bales are governed by some ground rules. Even the legendaryBale of Kurukshetra had a laundry list of dos and donts. For instance,killing an unarmed warrior or one whose back is turned was frownedupon.

However, these were rules of direct combat, not ones that governedmore covert practices. In one of the wars deceptive moments, thePandavas kill an elephant named Aswathama and then c onvinceDronacharya, the master trainer of the Kauravas, that his eponymousson had fallen. The morally upright Yudhisthira confirms this whilemuering, under his breath, that it was the elephant and not the manwho had died. The subtle deception finds its mark, sending Dronacha-rya into a despondent slump.

The Art of War, the ancient Chinese war treatise by Sun Tzu, describesdeception as lying at the core of wartime strategy. It is filled with clearand coherent advice such as this: when able to aack, one must seemunable to do so; when using our forces, we must seem inactive; whenwe are near, we must make the enemy believe we are far away; whenfar away, we must make him believe we are near.

But how much is too much? Ethicists have raised this question fromtime to time. In an article titled The Moral Status of Military Deception,Major John Mark Maox, a career military officer and professor, plumbsthe dilemma posed by this accepted wartime practice. Insofar asmilitary deception amounts to lying to the enemy or the public at large can it be justified? According to Maox, there are absolute philosophi-cal positions that hold that lying even the non-malicious variety isalways harmful.

Various post-war agreements, including the Geneva Convention, doprohibit acts of perfidy in order to kill, injure or capture an adversary.But they stop short of banning ruses of war such as camouflage,

decoys, mock operations, and misinformation tactics that any thinkingadversary will likely expect from the other side. Maox goes on to concludethat it is this expectation of deception that ultimately legitimizes it.

War readiness means that each of the parties engaged in combat is alsomentally prepared for the shadowy tricks and maneuvers of the oppositecamp. Also, as Maox says, war creates a somewhat abnormal situation inwhich taking human lives, destroying property, and suppressing personalfreedom are all sanctioned. In this context, a lile deception may not be sucha terrible thing.

This is not to say that it should be completely unhindered. Deception, as amilitary tactic, may be here to stay but it still needs some boundaries tocontain and guide it. The best validity test combatants can use for their tacticsis to check whether they move them towards the end goal described in SunTzus manual: The true object of war is peace.

References: hp://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE00/Maox00.html: The Moral

Status of Military Deception by Major John Mark Maox, US Army TheArt of War by Sun Tzu - Edited and with a foreword by James Clavell

Date post:	04-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	thepracticeindia
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

Viewpoint - January 2014

Documents