Leadership and Chess

The Quest for Great Leaders

Bateman and Snell define leaders as “strategists who seize opportunities which others overlook” (2009, p. 434). In fact, “outstanding leaders combine good strategic substance and effective interpersonal processes and implement strategies that produce results and sustainable competitive advantage,” Petrick, Schere, Brodzinski, Quinn, & Ainina, (as cited in Bateman & Snell, 2009, p. 434). Great leaders are also “passionately concerned with detail–all the small, fundamental realities that can make or mar the grandest plans,” (Bennis & Nanus, 1985, p. 144). They apply their cognitive ability to “formulate suitable strategies, solve problems, and make correct decisions” (Kirkpatrick & Locke, 1991, p. 55). In short, a great leader has a keen power of observation, formidable cognitive and strategic acumen, and a sense of how to neutralize competitors and thus, achieve objectives first and sustainably.

Many held the view that great leaders are born. Avolio, for instance, (as cited in Alberto, 2014, p. 2) stated that “most psychologists believe that leadership qualities are innate or genetic and thus, impossible to learn.” In fact, Bateman and Snell believe that even the idea of exploring leadership traits which great leaders possess, “assumes that leaders are born, not made” .. Another school of thought is that great leaders can be made. Bennis and Thomas (as cited by Alberto, 2014, p. 2) thought that one needed a transformative experience in one's life to turn one into a great leader. Ruvolo, Petersen, and LeBoeuf, on the other hand, suggested an equation, saying that the “process of learning leadership looks something like this: Experience + New Knowledge + Reflection (with support & feedback) + Time (more practice/experience) = Leadership Growth and Development”.

In spite of this rich spectrum of writings on leadership, however, there still seems to be a curious gap. Precisely how does a leader analyze the concrete situation he or she faces, strategize, and make decisions? Is there a working column in which a business, political, project management, or military landscape can be translated for ease of calculation of possibilities and arrival at plausible, creative, and effective strategies? The author believes the answer is yes, even if it is, for now, a crude model; and this model can be derived from the game of strategy and cognitive skills, chess.

Chess Exploration

Introducing Chess

Believed to have been invented in India before 600 AD (though some believe it originated in China around 200 BC), the game of chess is a respected, yet somewhat mysterious game. Many even believe it is reserved for the most intelligent people. The game has since evolved into many forms, including Chinese chess or Xiangqi, and the “western” form of the game, which is commonly accepted as international chess. This international chess will be referred to in the rest of this paper.

International chess has grown in popularity and is far more organized than the average person might reckon. Indeed, there exists a world governing body, Federation Internationale des Echecs (FIDE), which was founded in Paris on 20 July 1924, and which has been recognized by the International Olympic Committee since 1999, as an International Sports Federation. This FIDE, in the Laws of Chess section of its handbook on chess, has described the game of chess as follows:

The game of chess is played between two opponents who move their pieces on a square board [comprising 64 smaller squares] called a ‘chessboard’ [shown in Exhibit 1]… The objective of each player is to place the opponent's king ‘under attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent's king and to have won the game, The opponent whose king has been checkmated has lost the game. (Federation Internationale des Echecs, 2014, article 1.1, 1.2)

Exhibit 1: The chessboard and named pieces.

In spite of the seemingly limited 64 squares on a chessboard, former world chess champion and arguably the greatest player of all time Garry Kasparov pointed out that “after only 5 moves from the starting position, there are millions of possible positions” (Kasparov, 2007, p. 53). This is just one of the fascinations of chess.

What Makes Grandmasters Better Players

There are a great many people who play chess casually, but there are individuals who make a living on the sport of chess. At the top level, these players are called International Grandmasters (Grandmasters or GMs) and these days there are even Super Grandmasters. Just as many are interested in what sets great leaders apart from others, many people wonder what makes the difference between a Grandmaster and one who is not a Grandmaster? In fact, one of the most popular questions is, how many moves ahead can a Grandmaster see? Chess Grandmaster and author, Ludek Pachman, responded to these questions (as cited in Russell, 1971, p. 1), noting that the ability to calculate is not the most important difference, but rather the “ability to conduct the entire game on the basis of a correct plan laid out in advance.” Pachman further suggested (as cited in Russell, 1971, p. 2) that “the choice of plan is in every case dependent on the concrete position on the board [and] must therefore correspond to that position.”

Dutch psychologist, Adriaan de Groot, explored the difference between Grandmasters and other chess players in his classic experiment published in 1946. He showed the position (shown in Exhibit 2) to Grandmasters and other players and “asked them to think aloud while they tried to find the best move for white” (Bilalić, McLeod, & Gobet, 2008, p. 396).

Exhibit 2: Original position used in the research of Adriaan de Groot in 1946.

De Groot found (as cited in Bilalić, McLeod, & Gobet, 2008, p. 396), that:

On average, the Grandmasters found better moves and found them more quickly, but analysis of the verbal protocols suggested that the two groups differed little in the macrostructure of their search. Both investigated a similar number of moves and searched these to a similar depth.

So, what accounted for the success of the Grandmasters in de Groot's experiment? Could it be that the Grandmasters had a key, which gave them an understanding of the position, and of positions in general? Could it be that this key allowed Grandmasters to effortlessly identify candidate moves that were objectively better than those found by non-masters? In turns out that Grandmasters do have a key for understanding positions and formulating a correct plan. The logical question is, can this key be adapted in any way for use by leaders? And can the adapted key help leaders observe circumstances more keenly and arrive at creative and effective strategies more quickly?

Kotov (as cited in Cafferty, 2004, p.82) noted that before his time, “chess players had to assess positions on the basis of experience and comparisons.” This is similar to the notion of Ruvolo, Petersen, and LeBoeuf (2004) that leaders develop with experience. However, Kotov (as cited in Cafferty, 2004, p.82) adds that after the first World Champion, Wilhelm Steinitz, and a few others had identified the basic elements of a chess position, “chess masters had an analytical apparatus which enabled them to assess all chess positions with a fair degree of accuracy.” Kotov listed these elements as: (1) Open lines and diagonals, (2) Pawn structure and weak points, (3) Piece position, and (4) Space and the center (Kotov, as cited in Cafferty, 2004, p.83).

Pachman, though he said it somewhat differently, agreed with Kotov saying (as cited in Russell, 1971, p. 2) that the character of a position is determined by: (1) The material relationship (which side has captured more pieces); (2) The power of the individual pieces; (3) The quality of the individual pawns; (4) The position of the pawns, that is, the pawn structure; (5) The position of the kings (relative safety); and (6) Co-operation amongst pieces and pawns.

Kasparov (2007) summarized:

Evaluating a position goes well beyond looking for the best move. The move is only the output, the product of an equation that must first be developed and understood. It comes down to determining the relevant factors, measuring them and, most critically, determining the optimal balance between them. (p. 88)

These factors must have helped the Grandmasters in de Groot's experiment to accurately solve the chess problem faster than the non-masters.

If the leadership domain, like the chess domain, had such well-defined elements and positional characteristics, then budding leaders could be taught these elements and, thus, their ability to assess real-life situations with a fair degree of accuracy could be enhanced. This quest, to use the words of Grandmaster Kotov, to develop an ‘analytical apparatus’ for leadership, promises a road map to deliberately and sustainably develop leadership capacity, at least in the strategic thinking dimension. While the quest will take years of research, the author starts the process by proposing elements of the apparatus, identified through a conversion of a sample of chess principles to leadership maxims.

The Chess-Leadership Nexus

Defining the Nexus

The quest for an analytical apparatus for leadership, based on that which is used by chess Grandmasters, must first start with an identification of relationships between chess and leadership situations. To do this, the author starts by expressing the basic physical requirements of chess: a chessboard (made of squares), the King, the pieces and the pawns, in broad terms so that they can refer to elements of leadership scenarios in politics, war, international relations, business, and project management. This is shown in Exhibit 3 below.

Exhibit 3: Physical requirements for the game of chess expressed as elements of leadership scenarios.

Exploring the Nexus

It has already been established that Grandmasters use keys or principles to help them understand and assess chess positions. The author proposes eight of these principles, borrowed from each of the three stages of a chess game: the opening which has properties similar to project management's initiating and planning process groups; the middle game which may be likened to the executing and the monitoring and controlling process groups; and the endgame which can be likened to the closing process group. The eight principles have been interpreted into leadership terms and, by referencing the physical requirements for chess shown in Exhibit 3, the author thus recommends 8 principles for guiding and developing leaders. Principles 1, 2, and 5 were derived from general chess principles, applicable for all phases of a chess game. Principle 3 was derived from the most popular opening principle, while principle 4 was derived from a fundamental middle game stage principle. Principles 6, 7, and especially, 8 were derived from key principles of the endgame phase.

Principle 1: Be decisive (even when you are not certain)

This is, perhaps, the first rule of leadership thinking. A person who cannot make decisions and do so decisively, cannot be a leader, as leaders seldom have the luxury of absolute certitude. While any decision taken may result in failure, failure to make a decision, or constantly changing one's decision, will result not only in failure, but also in the frustration of those being led. This principle is derived from a maxim that is well known by Grandmasters, which Kasparov (2007) puts this way, “a frequently changed strategy is the same as no strategy” (p. 33).

Principle 2: Develop strategy based on the character of the position

The best chess players respect the nature of the chess position before them and play what the position calls for; they attack when required, defend when required, and wait when required. This means that they first strive to understand the position and then craft a strategy based on their understanding. Similarly, a leader must resist the temptation to prefer his or her personal preference or style over and above what a situation demands. Principle 2, therefore, demands that leaders know what their advantages are and develop plans based on those advantages, regardless of how unconventional or how seemingly unrelated to the goal the advantage may be. One of the most startling historical examples of this is President Nelson Mandela's strategy to use Rugby and the national rugby team, the Springboks (perceived as the symbol of the oppressive Afrikaners), to unite a divided post-apartheid South Africa.

Principle 3: Discover and develop team members

This principle corresponds to the most popular principle of chess openings: in the opening stage of the game, one must develop one's pieces. In chess, this means placing pieces on squares from which they can exert their maximum influence on a position. Great leaders must, therefore, develop their team members, not only through training, but also through mentorship, affirmation, and empowerment. This is consistent with the purpose of the project management process known as Develop Project Team, which the Project Management Institute (2013) describes as “the process of improving competencies [and] team member interaction…to enhance team performance” (p. 273).

Principle 4: Create conditions favorable to your team and unfavorable to your opponent's team

This principle is related to principle 3 in that it facilitates team members operating at their maximum potential. However, it achieves this not by improving the team members’ ability, but by providing the conditions for team members to excel. In chess, for example, bishops and rooks, which are long-range pieces, need open lines–diagonals for Bishops and ranks and files for Rooks. This is generally achieved by moving pawns, exchanging pawns, and sometimes sacrificing pawns. The parallel for this in leadership is to use assets to define and re-define terrain to the advantage of one's team. For example, in war it may be necessary to acquire an access route to facilitate movement of artillery. In business, this might mean creating a workplace that allows employees to work at their best. Another example, in the domain of project management, is to open lines of communication with team members either through the implementation of communication technology or through the building of trust between the project manager and team members and between the project manager and stakeholders. This is consistent with Eskerod and Vaagaasar (2014) who felt that, “trust can help strengthen the relationship between the project management team and each project stakeholder in a manner that serves the project” (p. 73). It is also important to note that to defend a position against an opponent or enemy, a leader should seek to close enemy lines.

Principle 5: Use different perspectives and currencies to evaluate options

This principle recognizes that while an action may reap obvious reward in one sphere, it may compromise one's standing in another. For example, in chess a player may give up material (sacrifice pawns and even pieces) in exchange for a lead in development (known in chess as time or tempi). This is the idea behind opening gambits. Paul Morphy, an American chess giant, was perhaps the first player to employ this as he won many brilliant games by sacrificing material to gain tempi and enhanced piece coordination. In project management, this concept of multiple currencies is reflected in the Perform Integrated Change Control Process, which includes the consideration of the impact of a change in one project constraint, for example, scope, on other constraints such as time, cost, and risk (Project Management Institute, 2013, p. 94). Principle 5 is also relevant in international relations. For example, United States President, Barack Obama always needed to carefully weigh the benefit of improved relations with Iran against the alienation of longstanding allies including Israel and Egypt, and against the impact that loosened sanctions on Iran could have on oil supply and price.

Principle 6: Create and exploit game changers

The modern game of chess has a peculiar rule:

When a player, having the move, plays a pawn to the rank furthest from its starting position, he must exchange that pawn as part of the same move for a new queen, rook, bishop, or knight of the same color on the intended square of arrival. This is called the square of ‘promotion.’ The player's choice is not restricted to pieces that have been captured previously. This exchange of a pawn for another piece is called promotion, and the effect of the new piece is immediate. (Federation Internationale des Echecs, 2014, article 3.7 e)

A pawn with a free path to promotion that is not impeded by any of the opponent's pawns is referred to as a passed pawn. Based on the rule of pawn promotion, a passed pawn is a potential game changer and, therefore, of significant strategic value to the player who possesses one. Grandmasters understand that passed pawns must be advanced or “pushed;” in other words, they must be promoted or, at the very least, the threat of promoting them must be maintained. In chess, this has a crippling effect on an opponent, often condemning an enemy piece to the perpetual task of guarding the passed pawn.

In leadership, this principle has significant relevance. Leaders must identify and create game changers for which the opponent, enemy, or competitor has no equal. This is often referred to in business as a competitive advantage. Such an advantage then needs to become the center of the leader's strategy and must be promoted until it results in the success of the leader's venture. Unfortunately, in the realm of war and even international relations, weapons, including nuclear weapons, are often passed pawns. In projects, a passed pawn or game changer may be a piece of technology or a unique work methodology. Project managers must, therefore, seek out such game changes and apply them to their projects.

Principle 7: Recognize and frustrate the opponent's game changers

Principle 7 is the antithesis of principle 6. Once an opponent's passed pawn has been identified, efforts must be made to neutralize it. In chess, one anti-passed pawn motif is to blockade the passed pawn with a piece, especially a Knight. The blockade effectively ensures that while the pawn maintains the passed pawn status, it cannot be advanced and, thus, has practically zero chance of being promoted. This is, perhaps, what President Barack Obama tried in 2015 by negotiating with Iran on the issue of its passed pawn, its nuclear program. Another strategy to counter the effect of an opponent's passed pawn is to develop one's own passed pawn. Unfortunately, this principle was applied in the nuclear arms race several decades ago.

Principle 8: Increase the visibility of the objective as you approach the final stages

Perhaps the most popular chess principle pertaining to the endgame is the development of the King; this typically means moving it toward the center of the chessboard. This is possible since the final stage of a chess game is often signaled by a significant reduction in the number of pieces held by both sides and, thus, a marked reduction in the relevance of King safety as a positional factor. Chess Grandmaster and author, Yasser Seirawan, puts it this way: “In endings, the boards are usually wide open…and kings emerge from their protective lair to become powerful pieces” (2004, p. ix).

According to the mapping shown in Exhibit 3, a King is likened to the objective of a player. Principle 8, therefore, means that the objectives of the venture, nation, business, or project need to be given increased visibility as the battle approaches the final stages. This is logical because reminding team members of the objective helps keep them focused on its achievement.

Conclusion

The principles explored above represent a small but useful list of ideas that leaders can employ to inform and improve their strategic thinking, and therefore, improve their leadership capacity. These principles have been used to interpret the strategies and actions of the late Nelson Mandela after he was elected President of South Africa. The interpretation, shown in Exhibit 4 below, is made based on the content of the article in USA Today on December 5, 2013, by Charles P. Korr.

Exhibit 4: Chess principles revealed in the actions of President Mandela (Korr, 2013).

The fact that the eight leadership principles proposed in this paper were useful in providing a logical interpretation of the strategies and actions of President Mandela, suggests that with further development, the principles might be useful in guiding leaders and developing leadership capacity. It might, therefore, be concluded that chess can build leadership skills by providing a working column in which a business, project management, political, or military landscape can be translated for ease of calculation of possibilities and arrival at plausible, creative, and effective strategies.

Thanks for reading my blog.

Are you Leading?

Dr. Deepak A. Patil

CEO, Lead ThySelf