Habit Change Is Like Chess (Blog)

[Steve Pavlina]

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Steve Pavlina's blog:

Habit Change Is Like Chess

[Akashic_Librarian]

This, I feel, is one of your truly more inspiring articles Steve, I mean wow! I just felt so empowered as I read it...it really gave me the kick up the proverbial arse to get started on changing my life, bravo! Jolly good show old boy, jolly good.

[Octavian82]

Great article Steve!
While reading it, the "bad habit" I had in mind to get rid of was "smoking cigarettes".
I´m calling it a habit instead of addiction because it´s mainly a mental problem.

I want to post some possible steps concerning stop smoking and your 3-step-process that could serve as an example for all the readers:

Before:
- become aware, that smoking is a problem (addiction)
- become aware, that stop smoking could positively change your live

Early Game (collecting information):
- how does nicotine work in your body/brain
- how does it influence your lungs/stamina
- what diseases it may cause (cancer)
- your clothes/rooms smell bad
- it harms people around you
- how much money you spend for it and what you could buy with it instead
- talk to people that succeeded
as a contrast "positive" things like:
- it´s some kind of social event
- easier getting in contact with people
- relaxing

Middle Game (small steps):
- try smoke less
- do some endurance sports (smoking will annoy you because of your bad stamina)
- don´t take part in every smoking pause of your collegues at work, or instead eat some fruit instead of smoking (just to keep the "social event" argument)
- try to find alternatives to relax
- find someone that wants to quit smoking with you

End Game:
- you recognise that you are feeling better and better after time and that it would be not too hard to quit smoking completely

Personally I currently find myself in the transition from Early Game to Middle Game and i want to keep going =)

[GreenTea]

Very helpful article---you're right--habit change should not be a struggle. Your suggestions also remind me of mentally prepaving as suggested by Abraham-Hicks, whose material I've just starting getting really into over the past month. The new habit needs to be made familar in our minds first, so it's the next logical step...

My favorite part of the article is:
"If you can’t even make it through the first week of a new habit without feeling an overwhelming urge to quit because you have to push yourself unreasonably hard to keep going, your mistakes were made long before you even began day one. You’re trying to pull off the equivalent of scholar’s mate, and your imaginary “opponent” isn’t stupid enough to fall for it."

It's amazing how well the chess analogy works.... Thanks!

[firefly]

Great article, Steve. I love the chess analogy.

When making a major life change we're so often pushed to "just try harder", but that philosophy has never rung true for me. I like your approach much better! The idea that success is determined in the early/mid-game feels like a better reflection of my own observations of successful vs. failed habit changes.

I can see this being applied beyond everyday habits to things like changing careers, moving across the country - any life change that requires "sticking the landing". Great stuff.

[Monique7nuns]

Originally Posted by GreenTea

Very helpful article---you're right--habit change should not be a struggle. Your suggestions also remind me of mentally prepaving as suggested by Abraham-Hicks, whose material I've just starting getting really into over the past month. The new habit needs to be made familar in our minds first, so it's the next logical step...

My favorite part of the article is:
"If you can’t even make it through the first week of a new habit without feeling an overwhelming urge to quit because you have to push yourself unreasonably hard to keep going, your mistakes were made long before you even began day one. You’re trying to pull off the equivalent of scholar’s mate, and your imaginary “opponent” isn’t stupid enough to fall for it."

It's amazing how well the chess analogy works.... Thanks!

I totally relate to what you've said above GT. I don't know that much about chess or Abraham-Hicks, but this is really making sense to me. I never would have considered to pre-plan before taking on the challenge. Well, I take that back.. I guess when I think about it I do preplan to a certain extent when trying to make dietary changes, but since none of them have stuck obviously I wasn't thorough enough; certainly not as thorough as breaking it down into 3 stages.

This article really throws a new spin on habit change and it even sorta starts to excite me a little... which isn't an easy thing to do.

[tshof]

So this is all getting weirder and weirder ...

I only stumbled on you and your blogs on Thursday of last week. Of course it was after googling "wake up to alarm," a problem (habit?) that I have been struggling with for over a year. Another problem that I have been struggling with for about as long is a significant weight gain that also put me on blood pressure meds.

I have been trying every approach imaginable to get my weight back down, but have so far been unsuccessful. I realized that my weight gain and my habit of staying in bed way too long seemed to arise at the same time, which is why I was now trying the approach of getting up earlier. I then went hopping around through your archives and found the 30-day trial blog. All of a sudden I had this "eureka" moment and was sure I had found the answer to all of my problems! That same day I did your recommended "waking practice," as well as even posting my own blog full of optimism about how I was about to change my life forever!

So that lasted a whole 3 days.
And here I am this morning, (after sleeping through my alarm and staying in bed until 10am) feeling rotten about myself and chalking it up as another one of my hairbrained "get rich quick" failed ideas...

So I log on to your site, to try and extract some motivation from your archived articles ... especially that "Self-Discipline" series I've been meaning to read ... and there you go ... new today, a fresh blog that seemed to be speaking to me directly! "Hey, you're going about it all wrong, don't you see?"

Funny, I even played chess as a kid ...

>>>The only thing I'm confused about is where I should pick up now. I'm fairly certain I'm in "Middle Game," at least with my diet and fitness (perhaps early game with the whole "Early Rising" thing) So how does one know when they are ready to move on up to the next level ... with less chance of falling on their face?

Thanks again, Steve ... You're GOOD!

[Trezker]

So you have turned that Chess learning trial from a while back and turned it into a personal development post. I've been waiting for this.

How has the chess playing been? What rank have you achieved?
Are you planning on drawing more life lessons out of this game?
Are you interested in exploring other games, like Go, in search of more insights?

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by tshof

>>>The only thing I'm confused about is where I should pick up now. I'm fairly certain I'm in "Middle Game," at least with my diet and fitness (perhaps early game with the whole "Early Rising" thing) So how does one know when they are ready to move on up to the next level ... with less chance of falling on their face?

Imagine playing a game of chess. Ideally you want to progress to the next stage when you feel ready. So you'd move on to middle-game tactics after you feel you've implemented a strong (dominating) early game opening. In the middle game and endgame, you are very confident of winning because you had such a strong opening. Your pieces are in a great position to achieve victory.

If you aren't confident you're winning the game, stay in the early game stage until you feel pretty confident. Keep moving your pieces around until you feel they're in the right position. You don't have to be 100%, but you feel strong enough that you'd bet money that you'll win.

[Steve Pavlina]

Originally Posted by Trezker

So you have turned that Chess learning trial from a while back and turned it into a personal development post. I've been waiting for this.

How has the chess playing been? What rank have you achieved?
Are you planning on drawing more life lessons out of this game?
Are you interested in exploring other games, like Go, in search of more insights?

I never got an official rank as far as I know. I played a number of games against human opponents of varying skill online. I won more than half of them. I just finished a game against Bruce Achterberg within the past week. I presently have two active games I'm involved in. One is nearing victory, the other is too close to call (I have a material advantage but a positional disadvantage).

I definitely found that my natural strategic thinking gave me an advantage. I was good at setting up checkmates during the middle game against players who played a lot more than I did. But against a very experienced player, I had very little chance. However, I did defeat one skilled and experienced player with a creative mid-game piece swap that he wasn't expecting. He was totally dominating me early in the game, and in the middle game it seemed hopeless for me and he kept constant pressure on my king, but somehow I came from behind to win with a move that initially seemed counterintuitive but turned out to be just what I needed to escape the trap. I really had to think carefully about every move in that game.

For the most part though, I haven't invested serious time in the game other than playing recreationally. The significance aspect still prevents me from pursuing it with much passion. In the grand scheme of things, chess just isn't important enough to me to invest the kind of time it would take to become really outstanding at it. There just isn't enough payoff (for myself or others) for the effort. However, I'm definitely glad I jumped in to try it. I learned a lot from the experience.

[Didi]

I don't have much to add here, other than I really resonate with this article. This kind of logical, strategic thinking is exactly what I need. Having an analogy that I understand (being an avid recreational chess player) really helps to provide a framework upon which to act. Thank you, Steve, for this bit of insight into the way things work.

[Bleicke]

Hey Steve (and guys),

Great post. I've been thinking about something similar lately when I finally managed to install a few new habits in myself.

I had tried eating healthy and working out for years, but I always lacked discipline. Turns out momentum is a great replacement for discipline.

It wasn't my plan initially, but I used several 30-day-trials to gain momentum and motivate myself.

In the beginning I just wanted to prove to myself that I could do ANYTHING AT ALL for 30 days. I had failed so many things that I wanted to do forever that I just had to see if I could do anything at all.

So I picked an easy one. Go vegetarian. That was not difficult since I'm not much of a meat eater anyway.

After 30 days I added "no sugar" (including sweetened cereal, soda, etc.), because there is just NO positive thing about eating refined sugar at all. So it's a no brainer. It was challenging, but I made it. Everyone kept supporting me because not eating sugar is somehow everyones secret desire which they can't pull off. The confidence from going vegetarian helped me pull through. I knew I could do it, if only for 30 days. On the 30th day I crammed myself full of sugar and almost puked. Wow, when did sugary stuff become so disgusting?

Barely able to wait till the next 30 days started, I added "work out intense for 5 minutes every morning prior to showering". Intense as in tabata squats (Google it if you don't know them, it's awesome. 4 minutes of workout and you're DEAD no matter what level you're at). I missed two days here but all in all I have no problem doing it now.

I recently started my 30 day write 1000 words every day trial. This one is challenging because it takes me up to an hour to write 1000 words. Most of the time is spent thinking. Sometimes I continue my new novel, at other times I post random thoughts in my blog at Bleicke.com.

My point is: starting with an easy 30-day-trial, I gained momentum and the confidence to do the more challenging trials.

I now don't eat meat, fish, anything with sugar, work out every morning and write 1000 words each day.

That's reflecting in my body composition, of course. People (especially girls) ask me if I lost weight. I didn't weigh myself, but I like them asking :-)

For me the early-game was getting into the habit of acquiring new habits. Middle game is now, I'd say. Having a few healthy habits that are not too tough. I guess when I finish this writing trial I'll change the workout routine to 15 minutes.

End-game, here I come!

[jawillie]

Originally Posted by GreenTea

My favorite part of the article is:
"If you can’t even make it through the first week of a new habit without feeling an overwhelming urge to quit because you have to push yourself unreasonably hard to keep going, your mistakes were made long before you even began day one. You’re trying to pull off the equivalent of scholar’s mate, and your imaginary “opponent” isn’t stupid enough to fall for it."

This was my favorite part of the article, too.

Makes sense. I see it in the patterns of my life, too.

Thanks, Steve!

[Toine]

I like the analogy, but wouldn't you say the middle game is the 30-day trial already (the hardest part of the game). Once you near the end of the 30-day trial you have a fairly good idea if you are going to make it. If not, your opponent might still be too strong for you. Your opponent being the habit to beat of course. Once you are through the trial and you do not fall back into the habit, there is your check mate.

[Keith]

Yet again you've produced the perfect article at the exact time I needed it.

I'm uncomfortable with how adversarial the analogy is though. Attacking the problem seems like it encourages an aggressive mindset, much like the "War on Drugs" (or the "War on Terror"), blinding people to solutions other than raids and shootouts.

Mightn't a better analogy be, say, growing a garden or building a building - something which has three stages and where you meet obstacles, but isn't adversarial?

[supertom]

does steve have any articles on "leverage"

[Bleicke]

yes. he does.

[tomn8er]

This chess analogy is brilliant! Very well thought out. Having played a fair bit of chess myself I can totally relate to it. So kudos to u Steve. I think you've posted more quality articles this month than the rest of 2008 combined!

[mdcmd]

Like many posters above, I enjoyed this article quite a bit. As a family doctor, the issue of behavioral change is something I see many times per day. One tool we were taught in my training is to learn the Stages of Change and assess the patient's current level. Then the goal for that visit is to try to help the patient move one level closer to the behavior change.

For those not familiar with the Stages of Change, I found a nice graph from UCLA's Center for Human Nutrition.(Prochaska and DiClemente’s Stages of Change Model)

I like Steve's chess analogy a lot, and I will try using it with patients to see how they respond. The analogy in my mind would carry out like this:

Many patients will be pre-contemplative. They don't even want to play. I mention that chess is fun, and if they decide to play, I am happy to help.

Contemplative = early game. Set things up for future. Strategize ideas for change. Promote positive outcomes.

Preparation = middle game. Problem solve. Identify stumbling blocks and strategize how to overcome them. Identify support network.

Action = end game. The UCLA website mentions "practicing new behavior for 3 to 6 months". I really like Steve's 30-day trials, and recommend that to patients.

Then comes maintenance. Continue to work and study and get better. Try to become a grandmaster? I will work on that part of the analogy

[Matt Willard]

This article, for me, sums up some of your past topics in a neat little bundle, which I like. I'll just have to hit one article next time a habit of mine vexes me (like my desire to check YouTube every so often after a period of work [shakes fist]). Course, the most strategic I ever get is Yu-Gi-Oh so take that how you will. (DEFENSE MODE :V)

I am very sorry for getting my geek all over this forum and I will clean it right up.

[Keith]

Originally Posted by Matt Willard

Course, the most strategic I ever get is Yu-Gi-Oh so take that how you will. (DEFENSE MODE :V)

If you're more familiar with Yu-Gi-Oh than chess, I see no reason you couldn't use it for your analogy.

It has 'preparation', 'jockeying for position' and 'endgame' phases too, right?

[Matt Willard]

Originally Posted by Keith

If you're more familiar with Yu-Gi-Oh than chess, I see no reason you couldn't use it for your analogy.

It has 'preparation', 'jockeying for position' and 'endgame' phases too, right?

Oh, of course. Mind you, how good your deck is depends on how much extra money you have to blow your nose on, but the same things apply.

[Erock]

Awesome. I have a problem with habits and I think the real problem is my early and mid game. Sweet.

[Jake Birkett]

Good analogy thanks Steve. Do you think it would work for depression? There must be some Early Game steps people can take before moving onto the other stages etc.

Some part of me enjoys trying to make a habit change immediately though and seeing how strong my willpower is (although I guess in some ways I probably do a rapid Early/Middle game just to get to the point of making the decision). I don't always succeed of course, but it's good to know you can suddenly change if you need to, and by the time 3-4 weeks have passed it's a new habit.

[meekermeehan]

Hi Steve – I also found this to be an especially strong article. I'm wondering if you would consider posting a follow-up article that includes some concrete examples of different habit changes that could benefit from the chess approach. I see that previous posters are wondering about how it could apply to smoking cessation and waking up early. I am self-employed and I'm trying to get in the habit of performing a set amount (in hours) of solid work each day. I'd love to read your thoughts on what the early and middle games of this might be.

Thanks for all your work.

[Acting Like Godot]

Greetings, Steve. It's me again, your friendly neighbourhood chess expert. I would just like to point out that your analogy of personal development / chess is not entirely correct. You had said that:

"Many people try to change their habits by skipping straight to the endgame. They dive in and commit themselves to making the change happen right away. This is what people do when they make a New Year’s Resolution. It hardly ever works."

However, there are many top chessplayers who are very happy to head quickly into the endgame. Examples of such players include Anatoly Karpov; Ivan Sokolov; and former world champions such as Tigran Petrosian and JR Capablanca.

These are players who are highly skilled in working with small advantages. They may have a tendency / preference to avoid complex, highly tactical, risky middlegames, because these are where they are most likely to commit an error and be caught out, even by a weaker player.

What the endgame specialist would like to do is obtain a small, quiet positional advantage in the opening / middlegame; simplify by exchanging pieces, and reach an endgame where the small quiet positional advantage still persists. The advantage could be as subtle as a slightly better pawn structure; or a bishop vs knight on an open board; or the better control of one open file.

Because of the high quality of their endgame technique, the small positional advantage will be enough for them to win (or that is how their strategy goes anyway).

Opponents of Tigran Petrosian used to lose to him, and then say, "I don't really know why or how I lost." He plays with such subtlety that his opponents aren't even aware of where they really went wrong such that they eventually ended up losing.

Now I will offer you an analogy, based on the endgame specialists, with personal development. You can think of this as a strategy to achieve a personal goal, with minimum fuss; minimum props; mininum distractions; minimum complications; and a heavy emphasis on pure fundamentals.

For example, suppose the personal goal is to lose weight. The analogous endgame specialist will ignore fad diets; newfangled exercise equipment; the latest controversial scientific studies; and complicated weight-loss strategies.

Instead he will opt for something very simple, very straightforward, and he will execute it with great precision and discipline. It may be something as simple as:

(a) run 4 miles four times a week;
(b) avoid all fatty food.

That's it. No matter what, he will just run 4 miles 4 times a week, and avoid all fatty food. It's simple, straightforward and he won't get sidetracked by details, details, details ........ the kind that entrap, engage and ultimately distract more complicated would-be weight-losers who hop from one fad diet to another fad diet, hoping to find the magic one.

[Ron Stoppable]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

(a) run 4 miles four times a week;
(b) avoid all fatty food.

That's it. No matter what, he will just run 4 miles 4 times a week, and avoid all fatty food. It's simple, straightforward and he won't get sidetracked by details, details, details ........ the kind that entrap, engage and ultimately distract more complicated would-be weight-losers who hop from one fad diet to another fad diet, hoping to find the magic one.

The Most Direct Solution to Any Problem

[Acting Like Godot]

Hello Steve:

Earlier I mentioned JR Capablanca. Here's a commentary on a game which he (in typical fashion) won by heading quickly into an endgame and pressing his small advantages. In this way, he beat his opponent the Russian master Ilya Kan (who was no chess slouch himself).

"The players traded pieces as if they had prearranged a draw and wanted to make it look good for the audience. Yet despite reaching a double rook ending by move 23, the game was not yet drawn. While best play would surely result in a drawn outcome, Capablanca possessed a number of very small advantages. The difficulty for Kan was twofold: first, he was probably psychologically unprepared to fight for a draw, and may have just hoped it would fall into his lap with "normal", "good" moves. Second, there wasn't any way for him to force a draw. Capablanca could do this and that, improving his position on one side of the board, then the other side, and Kan needed to react – sometimes prophylactically, but sometimes with activity of his own. In short, Capablanca's position still had play, and Kan still had enough rope to hang himself.

The game is a model in several respects. "Capa" illustrates how to utilize a small advantage from both the practical and the psychological point of view. Conversely, we can learn from Kan's errors how to better prepare ourselves for a long defense. And concretely, there are various techniques Capablanca uses that we can adopt: play on both wings, using the minority attack in the endgame, the proper timing of pawn breaks, combining horizontal and vertical attacking ideas with rooks, and more. It's a beautiful game by one of chess's all-time greats ...."

From time to time, Steve, you'll end up playing against an opponent reputed to be much stronger than yourself. You may feel very pleased that he doesn't seem to be attacking you; you aren't losing in the middlegame; in fact, you seem to be holding your own very well, and entering into an "equal"-looking endgame.

Tip for you, Steve. If your strong opponent is an endgame specialist, then in all likelihood, what looks "equal" to you doesn't look equal to him at all. Instead he sees small advantages everywhere, advantages that he knows how to press and grow. Even more importantly, with so few pieces left on the board, he knows that you won't be able to generate any unexpected tactical complications.

In other words, you're a sitting duck. He's a python. He doesn't actually seek to break your bones, you know. He intends to coil you up, and slowly tighten, tighten, tighten .... very calmly, very gradually ... until you suffocate to death. Then he'll swallow you whole.

DO NOT enter endgames with such players. Complicate the middlegame and go for the tactics and the combinations etc. If your endgame technique is weak, it's make-or-break for you in the middlegame. The duck has to fight back and peck really hard and flap its wings like crazy, before it loses its breath.

[Ron Stoppable]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Hello Steve:

Earlier I mentioned JR Capablanca. Here's a commentary on a game which he (in typical fashion) won by heading quickly into an endgame and pressing his small advantages. In this way, he beat his opponent the Russian master Ilya Kan (who was no chess slouch himself).



From time to time, Steve, you'll end up playing against an opponent reputed to be much stronger than yourself. You may feel very pleased that he doesn't seem to be attacking you; you aren't losing in the middlegame; in fact, you seem to be holding your own very well, and entering into an "equal"-looking endgame.

Tip for you, Steve. If your strong opponent is an endgame specialist, then in all likelihood, what looks "equal" to you doesn't look equal to him at all. Instead he sees small advantages everywhere, advantages that he knows how to press and grow. Even more importantly, with so few pieces left on the board, he knows that you won't be able to generate any unexpected tactical complications.

In other words, you're a sitting duck. He's a python. He doesn't actually seek to break your bones, you know. He intends to coil you up, and slowly tighten, tighten, tighten .... very calmly, very gradually ... until you suffocate to death. Then he'll swallow you whole.

DO NOT enter endgames with such players. Complicate the middlegame and go for the tactics and the combinations etc. If your endgame technique is weak, it's make-or-break for you in the middlegame. The duck has to fight back and peck really hard and flap its wings like crazy, before it loses its breath.

The article's about developing our implementation of new habits; you're on about one-up-man-ship. What's the sitch?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Ron Stoppable

The article's about developing our implementation of new habits; you're on about one-up-man-ship. What's the sitch?

It originates from Steve's imperfect analogy, not me. Chess is a game for two - and it ends in a win/lose or draw.

To extend the analogy to personal development, I guess you have to personify some aspects of your circumstances, and treat them as a chess opponent.

For example, perhaps you could treat your doubts, fears, disadvantages, limiting beliefs etc as your chess opponent.