The variation on the King's Bishop Pawn gambit executed with aplomb. The risk was real but the odds still favorable enough. Once drawn in, the opposition was at least one move behind where they would have been had they detected the strategy earlier.
The chess metaphor fit well here. The big difference was the asynchronous relationship of the moves as opposed to the taking-turns of the classical game. If there was anything they learned from the output of the last statistical run is that a tactical retreat with the right strategy was nearly as beneficial as best move with the first mover advantage.
What the opposition was probably unaware of was just how much they had been drinking their own Kool-Aid. When one depends on obfuscation to keep the troops from knowing the self-serving agenda, that party also has to be extremely careful not to see its opponent through the same foggy lens they have created for their pawns.
The counter-strategy was to get the opposition to reveal much of their arsenal in a battle that merely seemed to be theater critical and just before they became aware that it was a red herring. Let them have a symbolic victory and in the process further obscure how they had been tricked into using their best for a mostly illusory gain.
The guerilla advantage is when one has not much to lose, nearly all the battles in this situation have the potential to be highly efficient learning experiences. Soliciting sponsorship is then catalyzed by the sheer growth efficiency implicit in a low risk venue. Many a breakthrough has come as a result of well-managed asymmetrical competition. We all know the story of David and Goliath - not as many understand the "small and nimble advantage" pattern in a way that can be flexibly applied.
No comments:
Post a Comment