comparing between politics games and chess games

i think it is an old comparing but lets think about it deeply
i will try to make this compare at the Egyption revolution example
we have 2 main sides there
1. government and some corrupts
2. the people
the first side have some strong pieces : the Authority and the state security and the local tv & radio
the second side have them self ( the people ) they are too larg and too Enthusiast and they are sure that the true beside them .. they can loss there life for the freedom
the piece of enthusiast is the new upgrade on the board .. this is the piece which change the position on the board
enthusiast is very strong piece by it they takes the state security and shot it out of the board
and the strong feeling that they are true shot the local tv out of the board too
now the government has no thing but the authority
the outside players such as U.S.A and Arab countries and others are out of call coz the events are so fast ( bullet game )
they can't give any thing to the side they like to win .. they feel that they can't understand this game
now the game is going to the PEOPLE WINS ... Or to : ALL ARE LOSSERS
all are losser such as the both side has no matrial to win .. and both side refuse the draw .. so they loss there time and there power in useless moves
but it will be true that THE PEOPLE WINS
i hope that how want to share me this topic try to put anther example for comparing between chess and politics
thank u

proudmuslim,

im afraid that regardless of the outcome of the revolution (btw, its nice to see someone callin it a revolution) you mentioned, the positional aspects of the game are still due to start.

regards

In a chess you can lose and start another game, that is the history of civilization. We always believe the game we are playing
is the most important but everybody is playing a slightly different game. Public consensus over a move is not always the best way to operate because who decides what is the best move? It will suit some people's style and purpose and not others, The problem increases exponentially with the amount of people in the peoples team, they have too many conflicting ideas and goals to operate cohesively. Governments have a similar problem, although some Politicians in the Government may not like the suggested move, they will keep quiet to in the hope of promoting to a queen in the end game. Then we have a Dictator he generally starts the game with an all out attack ,even if the people should play a perfect tactical game he simply changes the rules and wins anyway. The nearest to a perfect solution would be to have 2 Grand-master's superbly intelligent and kind
hearted. One a benevolent Dictator and one representing the people. They then play for the joy of the game and don't really care who wins or loses as long as nobody gets hurt and they can always play another game and slightly change their strategy. Unfortunately the candidate benevolent Dictator doesn't play chess, he prefers to sit under a shady tree and contemplate the beauty of the universe.