In chess and geopolitics, we draw very unique lessons from the style of play of the great Mikhail Tal.

While Tal and Russian President Vladimir Putin have different backgrounds and domains of interest, I believe looking at the nonconventional chess style of Tal will provide some insight into Putin. 

Even though his matches were played decades ago, the element of Tal’s chess was aggressive and contrary to orthodox thinking.  His style earned Tal the ongoing distinction of being in the top 20 chess players in history. It is clear that Putin has his historic designs.

Some masters, such as Nimzovitsch, were methodical in controlling the board and slowly forced their opponents into unfavorable choices. Tal brought unfavorable choices to his opponents, but his moves were often unexpected. This had the psychological effect of stressing an adversary, and frequently forced errors as a result. Tal once remarked, “one must also make every effort to combat the thoughts and will of the opponent.” 

Even the players who were not rattled still had to fend off an attack, where he often gained momentum through sacrificing a piece. In chess at the highest levels, where the players are of comparative strength, frequent sacrifices are rare. Many, though not all, are adverse to such risk taking because they understand being down one piece, even a pawn, at the master level can usually cost the game. Tal turned convention on its head by recognizing that games didn’t have to be won by incremental precision, but from direct force.

Many Western leaders have built a construct of the world system that does not meet up with the thinking of Putin. Recently, at the Atlantic Council meeting hosted by Nicholas Burns, former National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley remarked that Putin was skilled at capitalizing on opportunities that present themselves. 

Drawing a similar observation in a recent interview on NPR, Chess Grandmaster Rogoff commented on Putin as “a master of the tactics. He sort of sees a few moves ahead, and he’s very good at it. But what is the long-term strategy? It’s really hard to see.”

In the West, some analysts only view the situation superficially and conclude Putin is weakened because of the economic strain of sanctions, increased responsibilities for Crimea, and the resulting comparative electoral gain for the more European Union-aligned groups in Ukraine. 

While economic market strength and political strength are elements of real power, especially in democratic systems, they are not the only factor. Living during a time of general global stability and the absence of great wars between major powers has obscured the other elements of power. Absolute power in the form of territory and wealth remain significant. Like Tal, Putin is sacrificing global public sentiment and the ruble to have a more favorable end game that incudes territorial expansion (with the drilling rights) and the benefit of increased domestic support. 

Putin would certainly understand the quote from Tal, “many sacrifices don’t require concrete calculation at all. It is sufficient to only glance at the arising position to convince us that the sacrifice is correct.”

The recent four-party talks among the E.U., U.S., Russia and Ukraine included support for a more regionalized system of government within Ukraine after the election. In any scenario, whether Russia maintains forces in or out of Ukraine, with this arrangement there will be enough continuing instability in Ukraine to make it almost impossible for it to be a member of NATO. 

As a result, this approach would serve Russia and Putin’s ultimate objective. This behavior is more of an outgrowth of thinking of both Russian nationalism, but also the challenges presented by authoritarian capitalist systems. In this case the state is stronger because of the advantages and wealth gained from a capitalist system. If this struggle escalates, and no one can be certain it will, it could form into a long challenging struggle like the Cold War with one of the elements of Russia’s own demise, communism, replaced.

How great players responded to Tal can provide some meaningful guidance to direct challenges posed by Putin. First, do not display an emotional response through speeches and policy. Tal and Putin capitalize on this weakness effectively. 

Second, Tal’s moves often had the effect of breaking down a position and dividing defending forces. Thus, he made it difficult to defend critical pieces, namely the king. Putin is effective at dividing NATO and the EU through natural gas contracts. NATO needs to work more collaboratively, and the EU needs greater energy exploration and calibration to minimize Putin’s leverage over individual states.

Most important, a comprehensive short-term and long-term strategy must be put into place. There continues to be a popular argument in U.S. foreign policy circles that the U.S. does not need a strategy. The point includes statements that the world is too complex to understand, or the U.S. can’t create a comprehensive strategy and should therefore just focus on domestic goals. The foreign policy community is doing a great disservice to society by not properly preparing for future challenges. As Tal teaches us, it is certain that the side who has an aggressive plan will always beat the one who has no plan.

Viewing Putin’s behavior through the prism of the royal game can give us new insights into his actions. He once remarked, “chess makes man wiser and clear-sighted.”

— Kevin Modlin is a WKU master’s graduate in economics, a Ph.D. student in international relations at Florida International University, former congressional aide, and chess enthusiast.