Law 17 of The 48 Laws of Pow­er empha­sizes the pow­er of unpre­dictabil­i­ty in main­tain­ing con­trol over oth­ers and keep­ing them in a con­stant state of uncer­tain­ty. Human nature thrives on pre­dictabil­i­ty, as it pro­vides a sense of secu­ri­ty and the abil­i­ty to antic­i­pate out­comes. By break­ing these expec­ta­tions and act­ing in ways that defy log­i­cal pat­terns, one can cre­ate an atmos­phere of unease, forc­ing oppo­nents to sec­ond-guess their deci­sions and strate­gies.

A strik­ing exam­ple of this prin­ci­ple in action comes from the leg­endary 1972 World Chess Cham­pi­onship between Boris Spassky and Bob­by Fis­ch­er. Fischer’s errat­ic behav­ior before and dur­ing the match—including delay­ing his arrival, mak­ing unusu­al demands, and com­plain­ing about minor details—was per­ceived as irra­tional but was, in real­i­ty, a delib­er­ate tac­tic. His unpre­dictabil­i­ty unset­tled Spassky, caus­ing the reign­ing cham­pi­on to doubt his own strate­gies and react emo­tion­al­ly rather than log­i­cal­ly.

Fischer’s abil­i­ty to manip­u­late not just the game but also the psy­cho­log­i­cal state of his oppo­nent was a mas­ter­class in unpre­dictabil­i­ty as a tool for dom­i­nance. Even after for­feit­ing an ear­ly game, he recov­ered with aggres­sive and uncon­ven­tion­al moves that left Spassky dis­ori­ent­ed. The psy­cho­log­i­cal toll on Spassky was so pro­found that he even enter­tained con­spir­a­cy the­o­ries about Fis­ch­er using mind con­trol tac­tics, demon­strat­ing just how effec­tive unpre­dictabil­i­ty can be in desta­bi­liz­ing an oppo­nent.

Beyond chess, this law applies in pol­i­tics, war­fare, and busi­ness, where lead­ers who are dif­fi­cult to pre­dict often main­tain an advan­tage over their adver­saries. His­tor­i­cal fig­ures like Napoleon Bona­parte used unpre­dictabil­i­ty to out­ma­neu­ver larg­er armies, strik­ing when and where oppo­nents least expect­ed. In mod­ern times, busi­ness tycoons like Elon Musk employ unpre­dictable behav­ior to keep com­peti­tors, investors, and the media off bal­ance, ensur­ing they con­trol the nar­ra­tive rather than react­ing to it.

This law is also valu­able in nego­ti­a­tions, where unpre­dictabil­i­ty can be a pow­er­ful bar­gain­ing tool. When one side is unable to antic­i­pate how the oth­er will respond, they may become more cau­tious, offer­ing con­ces­sions in an attempt to regain con­trol of the sit­u­a­tion. By refus­ing to con­form to expec­ta­tions, an indi­vid­ual can shift pow­er dynam­ics in their favor, forc­ing oth­ers to adapt to their terms rather than the oth­er way around.

Psy­cho­log­i­cal­ly, unpre­dictabil­i­ty taps into fear and anx­i­ety, as peo­ple feel uncom­fort­able when they can­not fore­see poten­tial con­se­quences. This prin­ci­ple is often observed in lead­er­ship styles where boss­es or polit­i­cal lead­ers cre­ate an envi­ron­ment of uncer­tain­ty, ensur­ing that sub­or­di­nates remain atten­tive, cau­tious, and always seek­ing approval. When peo­ple do not know what to expect, they tend to tread care­ful­ly, giv­ing the unpre­dictable per­son a psy­cho­log­i­cal advan­tage.

How­ev­er, this law also comes with an impor­tant caution—excessive unpre­dictabil­i­ty can lead to alien­ation and loss of cred­i­bil­i­ty. If some­one becomes too errat­ic, they risk being per­ceived as unsta­ble or unre­li­able, which can dimin­ish their abil­i­ty to main­tain long-term influ­ence. The key is to bal­ance unpre­dictabil­i­ty with moments of pre­dictabil­i­ty, using sta­bil­i­ty as a tool to lull oth­ers into com­pla­cen­cy before strik­ing with an unex­pect­ed move.

The prin­ci­ple of unpre­dictabil­i­ty is evi­dent in com­pet­i­tive sports as well, where elite ath­letes keep their oppo­nents guess­ing through var­ied tac­tics. Fight­ers in box­ing or mixed mar­tial arts, for instance, often change their fight­ing styles mid-match, con­fus­ing their oppo­nents and pre­vent­ing them from devel­op­ing a con­sis­tent counter-strat­e­gy. This same approach applies to busi­ness and pol­i­tics, where those who fre­quent­ly shift their tac­tics remain dom­i­nant by pre­vent­ing oth­ers from effec­tive­ly coun­ter­ing them.

Ulti­mate­ly, Law 17 teach­es that pow­er lies in main­tain­ing an ele­ment of sur­prise and ensur­ing that oth­ers remain uncer­tain about one’s next move. Whether in per­son­al rela­tion­ships, cor­po­rate nego­ti­a­tions, or large-scale pow­er strug­gles, those who mas­ter unpre­dictabil­i­ty can con­trol nar­ra­tives, manip­u­late emo­tions, and unset­tle their adver­saries. By care­ful­ly imple­ment­ing this strat­e­gy, indi­vid­u­als can main­tain dom­i­nance with­out direct con­fronta­tion, keep­ing oth­ers in a state of sus­pend­ed ter­ror where they are always react­ing rather than tak­ing ini­tia­tive.