This past Thursday, Bill Gates lost a televised chess game to Magus Carlson, the reigning world chess grandmaster in nine moves.
Bill Gates plays the white pieces.
Black plays the Nimzowitsch Defense. This is an interesting choice.
The efficient book move is 3. e5. Creating an odd pressure in the spacing of the King side.
Some people preferred to play 3. ♗b5 .
In most opening game scenarios, positioning the White's king bishop to obstruct the movement of the White queen pawn is not a good idea. This obstruction is the beginning point for more bad moves. In real life, the bishop rarely protects the pawn.
White should have played ♘ e4
Developing the positioning of the pieces by chasing the queen is also a good idea.
One should never maneuver their king (castling) into a possible storm.
Black applies more pressure to the White's king side.
White takes the bait
Black returns the favor and targets extreme pressure on H2 while displaying a simple misdirectional bait.
One bad move in the opening (White's third move) usually guarantee the beginning of total chaos. The road to this category of loss is paved with good intentions and amateurish analysis. Regardless of the game, some people are so focused on the front effect that they cannot see the "subtle duality" of that move.
- Read the entire board before make a decision.
- Understand the positives and negative of any moves before concluding the next move.
Regardless of this micro loss, Bill is still a big winner in life.
If Magus and a bridge partner were playing a game of Bridge against Gates and Buffet, While it would be an interesting match, my money might be on Gates and Buffet.
In a pseudo-predictable setting like chess, one must focus on the time factor, the space factor, the mobility factor, the force factor and the pawn structure factor (formation) . ... When playing white, one must stay one move ahead while maintaining spatial control of the center with direct occupation of pawns and indirect control by minor pieces to force black to play reactive defense.
As mentioned before, castling into a storm (move #6) is not a good strategy.
Retrospectively, the amateurs are obsessed with their gadget openings while the professionals are focused on playing their games. The budding chess players consciously decides which route to take/
While being fans of the late Robert James Fischer, some of us preferred to play Go (weiqi) or "Texas Hold 'Em" poker.
Go is to chess as theoretical physics is to arithmetic. Some people believes that life could be described as a game of Go or a game of showdown poker or a game of chess. We believed that the configuration of the situation determines the game metaphor. ... Whether the implementer has the awareness to understand it, is a different story. Interestingly, we have seen people using the chess metaphor in a "Go game" type of setting. Strategically, their perspective will only hurt them on a long run. Without any under-standing of the unknown that could lie in front of them, they will be grounded and pounded by the indirect forces.
Their incorrect use of a metaphor reminds us of novices bringing a penknife to a gunfight. In most occurrences, their projected outcome will not be real.
The Bottom Line
To thrive in any settings, the chief decision maker must know how to read the entire situation before deciding on anything relevant.