Garry Kasparov

[Rick]

This was inspired by a similar thread at the Socionix forum:
http://forum.socionix.com/index.php?showtopic=932


Kasparov's quotes:
- In conclusion, if you want to unravel the multitude of secrets of chess then don't begrudge the time.
- The public must come to see that chess is a violent sport. Chess is mental torture.
- My nature is that I have to excite myself with a big challenge.
- For inspiration I look to those great players who consistently found original ways to shock their opponents. None did this better than the eighth world champion, Mikhail Tal. The "Magician of Riga" rose to become champion in 1960 at age twenty-three and became famous for his aggressive, volatile play.
- This obligation to move can be a burden to a player without strategic vision.
- Having spent a lifetime analyzing the game of chess and comparing the capacity of computers to the capacity of the human brain, I've often wondered, where does our success come from? The answer is synthesis, the ability to combine creativity and calculation, art and science, into a whole that is much greater than the sum of its parts. Chess is a unique cognitive nexus, a place where art and science come together in the human mind, and are then refined and improved by experience.
- Chess helps you to concentrate, improve your logic. It teaches you to play by the rules and take responsibility for your actions, how to problem solve in an uncertain environment.
- It's not enough to be talented. It's not enough to work hard and to study late into the night. You must also become intimately aware of the methods you use to reach your decisions.
- Women, by their nature, are not exceptional chess players: they are not great fighters.











I also dug up a thread on this forum in the Alpha thread, where LII and LIE were suggested. Obviously, the world grand chess champion must be a logical type, right?

My versions are ESE or SEE with SLE a remote possibility. To me Kasparov seems like a direct, animated, physical, and extremely energetic person. For comparison with an NT type, look at the other man in the second interview with him (Stephen Cohen), who is intellect-centered, emotionally distant, and analytical. Kasparov, in contrast, is constantly moving around energetically, is full of passion, changes his facial expressions all the time, and seems hurried and a bit pushy.

In my opinion, the fact that Kasparov was a chess master doesn't say much about his type at all. His particular style in chess compared to other players of his level, however, does.

[Phaedrus]

My versions are ESE or SEE with SLE a remote possibility.

ESE is a ridiculous suggestion, totally impossible and therefore out of the question. There must be something seriously wrong with your typing if you can see Kasparov as an ESE.

To me Kasparov seems like a direct, animated, physical, and extremely energetic person.

Correct observation.

In my opinion, the fact that Kasparov was a chess master doesn't say much about his type at all. His particular style in chess compared to other players of his level, however, does.

Correct again. And his style in chess is dynamic and aggressive. He was the best prepared player in the world in the openings when he was still active competing on the chess board. His decisions are primarily based on calculations rather than intuition. He is a serious optimist and a strategist. He is very future oriented and lives an ordered life.

ENTJ.

That is clearly the most likely type in my opinion.

[Rick]

My versions are ESE or SEE with SLE a remote possibility.

ESE is a ridiculous suggestion, totally impossible and therefore out of the question. There must be something seriously wrong with your typing if you can see Kasparov as an ESE.

I love you too

[Phaedrus]

My versions are ESE or SEE with SLE a remote possibility.

ESE is a ridiculous suggestion, totally impossible and therefore out of the question. There must be something seriously wrong with your typing if you can see Kasparov as an ESE.

I love you too

Totally irrelevant remark. Kasparov can't be an ESE. Period.

[Rick]

To me Kasparov seems like a direct, animated, physical, and extremely energetic person.

Correct observation.

ENTJ.

That is clearly the most likely type in my opinion.

How do you reconcile these two? Or do you feel the need to?

[Rick]

My versions are ESE or SEE with SLE a remote possibility.

ESE is a ridiculous suggestion, totally impossible and therefore out of the question. There must be something seriously wrong with your typing if you can see Kasparov as an ESE.

I love you too

Totally irrelevant remark. Kasparov can't be an ESE. Period.

In my opinion that remark was highly relevant. Comma.

[Phaedrus]

To me Kasparov seems like a direct, animated, physical, and extremely energetic person.

Correct observation.

ENTJ.

That is clearly the most likely type in my opinion.

How do you reconcile these two? Or do you feel the need to?

Are you suggesting that LIEs cannot be direct, animated, physical and extremely energetic?

[Rick]

To me Kasparov seems like a direct, animated, physical, and extremely energetic person.

Correct observation.

ENTJ.

That is clearly the most likely type in my opinion.

How do you reconcile these two? Or do you feel the need to?

Are you suggesting that LIEs cannot be direct, animated, physical and extremely energetic?

Not necessarily. But these traits are most associated with ethics, sensing, and extraversion.

What are your reasons for ruling out ESE (and possibly SEE)?

[Rick]

Especially in the second interview posted, I see no particular reason to suspect a type at all. I see little if any reliance on facts, numbers, or logical arguments. The man is very emotional and passionate, rhetorical and idealistic, and keeps talking about what people feel. He seems far less analytical than the other interviewee, who, in my opinion, is probably LIE (maybe LII).

[Phaedrus]

Are you suggesting that LIEs cannot be direct, animated, physical and extremely energetic?

Not necessarily. But these traits are most associated with ethics, sensing, and extraversion.

What are your reasons for ruling out ESE (and possibly SEE)?

In his interests and attitudes Kasparov comes across as a clearly intuitive type. He is far too aggressive, outspoken, and ready to go against public opinion to be a likely ESE. He is emotional, but he doesn't argue or think like en ethical type. Some of his outward behaviours could be due to a slight autism spectrum disorder, and that claim is not only based on the fact that he has a savant-like memory but also on the way he lives his life, for example as can be seen in a French documentary about him some years ago.

[Rick]

Here's an additional, more informal video of Kasparov talking about chess:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

In the first, informal part of this presentation, Kasparov talks about fun and exciting aspects of chess history and brings up human aspects. He is very animated (in intonation and body language) and confident entertaining people and generating involvement and laughter and holds himself very confidently. When he starts talking about chess moves that no longer have a human dimension to them, he becomes quite a bit less animated and a bit dull.

In my opinion, this suggests that he is more interested in conveying "exciting" things that will generate an emotional response than in providing analysis and showing people things that work.

[Minde]

My versions are ESE or SEE with SLE a remote possibility.

ESE is a ridiculous suggestion, totally impossible and therefore out of the question. There must be something seriously wrong with your typing if you can see Kasparov as an ESE.

I love you too

Totally irrelevant remark. Kasparov can't be an ESE. Period.

In my opinion that remark was highly relevant. Comma.

(Sorry for interrupting. I just found that quite wonderful.


I think you should post more often, Rick.)

[Phaedrus]

Kasparov reasons very much like an LIE when he defends his views. He refers to principles and the system or society as a whole. His general outlook is typical of logical intuitives. He is not at all pragmatic and down to earth in the way many sensing types (of which the ESE is a very good example) are, for example the LSI Anatoly Karpov.

[Phaedrus]

Here's an additional, more informal video of Kasparov talking about chess:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

In the first, informal part of this presentation, Kasparov talks about fun and exciting aspects of chess history and brings up human aspects.

No. You probably misunderstand both the context and the content of what he is talking about. In the first, "informal" part of this presentation Kasparov is talking about players statistics, their results against each other, etc. He is talking about the content of his own book (several volumes) My Great Predecessors. The human aspects are not in focus, neither in the book nor in his speech here.

He is very animated (in intonation and body language) and confident entertaining people and generating involvement and laughter and holds himself very confidently. When he starts talking about chess moves that no longer have a human dimension to them, he becomes quite a bit less animated and a bit dull.

That is correct but irrelevant, because in both cases he is presenting nothing but facts. Kasparov is almost always talking like a walking encyclopedia, so also in this video. His speech is full of .

In my opinion, this suggests that he is more interested in conveying "exciting" things that will generate an emotional response than in providing analysis and showing people things that work.

Not at all. You misinterpret him completely if you think that.

[FDG]

Here's an additional, more informal video of Kasparov talking about chess:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

In the first, informal part of this presentation, Kasparov talks about fun and exciting aspects of chess history and brings up human aspects. He is very animated (in intonation and body language) and confident entertaining people and generating involvement and laughter and holds himself very confidently. When he starts talking about chess moves that no longer have a human dimension to them, he becomes quite a bit less animated and a bit dull.

In my opinion, this suggests that he is more interested in conveying "exciting" things that will generate an emotional response than in providing analysis and showing people things that work.

Rick, I think you should take into account Renin Dichotomies in this specific instance. I know you're not a fan of them due to the sometimes excessive complications they add to the model, but what you are referring to are typical aspects of emotivism of the emotivion-creating/construc-creating dichotomy, and they are coherent with the LIE hypothesis.

[Rick]

I'm curious whether Expat can see him as his identical.

I am really curious about this guy and am going to count up typings of Kasparov from Russian forums.

OK, here are the results:

typings in some sort of publication format: IEE - 2, SEE - 1, ILI - 1

cumulative typings from a number of different forums and counting the mentioned publications:

IEE - 7
ILE - 6
EIE - 5
LIE - 5
SEE - 2
LII - 1
SLE - 1
ILI - 1

So, people are split 50-50 on ethics and logic. Almost everyone thinks he is an intuitive extravert. There is a slight preference for irrationality.

Here is a collection of all the meaningful comments I found:

"K. is an ILE with an aggressive role function"
"People who know him personally speak of his great charm."
"A charismatic."
"There's too much impulsiveness and illogic in K."
"What is illogical about K.?"
"K's actions were quite destructive. We have him to thank for destroying the world championship game system. His attempts to create an alternative didn't lead to anything. And then there's his preoccupation with extravagant historical theories."
"A standard sensing sanguinic."
"Megaemotional person."
"He's IEE like many experts say. Look at his emotionality and powerful intuition. Plus, he doesn't get stuck in relationships with anyone; he's a kind of self-sufficient extravert."
"Nonsense. Looking at his chess game, that's [intuition] his weak spot. Wherever the overall position and its possible future transformations need to be assessed, he is weaker than Karpov and other chess players. He's a logical player. He strives to calculate options, and not foresee the position."
"Kasparov is good at calculations, but he has problems with intuition. He usually just grabs people by the throat gradually or immediately and that's it."
"Impressions of an IEE who saw him in real life. His mentality is one of intolerance to everything, an inhuman self-opinion and arrogance. Plus, it's physically unpleasant to be closer than 4 or 5 meters from him. Kasparov has an awfully stinky, black energy coming from him -- it's so bad that you can't remain calm around him."
"What nonsense! Nothing of the sort. He is a very interesting, understandable, smart, and sensitive person. And an IEE for sure."
"K. is EIE. Such passion, and then all of the sudden rational moralizing."
"EIE -- and with obvious psychological disorders."


Take that as you like. I was interested in Russian's perception of the man.

[Gilly]

SEE or IEE ethical sub, IMO. Reminds me of an IEE I worked with over the summer. Most clearly Fi/Te values, which he uses to pwn Bill Maher even when they agree in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQYyPooETcI

Although some parts...I could see some TeNi.

[Park]

My impression from the videos is LIE. I would also consider IEE as a possibility, but would definitely ignore ESE and SEE.

[Phaedrus]

Well, if Kasparov really is an ethical type, I think he must be either IEE or SEE. No other ethical type can be taken seriously, in my opinion, one reason being that Kasparov comes across as Serious rather than Merry.

If we look at several world class chess players from different times, I think there are some patterns to see. Among the very best players, those that seriously aspire to become World Champions, we find more logical types than ethical. And one reason why is, I think, that you need to be born with a "killer instinct" or develop one. Boris Spassky was not born with an accentuated killer instinct, but he became World Champion anyway, and so did Tigran Petrosian (more by "accident"), who had an even more tame temperament. Another example of a "mild" player, who was once ranked number 4 in the world but didn't have what it takes to get to the top, is the Swedish grandmaster Ulf Andersson. In their later years they soon turned into extreme drawing masters, who were very reluctant to risk anything.

Contrast them with the three players that many people consider the best of all times, at least according to rankings and result statistics: Garri Kasparov, Anatoly Karpov, and Bobby Fischer. All three of them have had this in common: an enormous will to win at all costs. They played in different styles, but they were merciless at the board. They put all of their opponents to the test, almost as if they wanted to crush them, seeing them crumble under the enormous pressure.

Kasparov is the dynamic one among those three and also the most aggressive. Fischer was more like Karpov -- an introvert who achieved better results in static positions and always preferred a better ending to a promising but speculative attack. Karpov was sometimes content if he made a better result than his opponents and won the tournament, whereas both Kasparov and especially Fischer were more of maximalists.

Fischer and Kasparov played the same openings as Black for several years -- the Najdorf Sicilian and the King's Indian, which are more actively aggressive than those in Karpovs repertoire. In that respect Fischer was more like Kasparov, and they both put more work on opening preparations than Karpov. But in essence Fischer's style of play is more lucid, static, and classical than Kasparov's, and, like Karpov's, Fischer's style of play is more similar to Capablanca's, Morphy's and other classicists. Kasparov, on the other hand, is a great example of the Russian school, which has a much more dynamic view on how chess should be played, emanating from Alekhine and other non-classical players (for example Tchigorin).

Karpov is a natural born intuitive player of the same sort as Capablanca, Anand, Smyslov, and others, whereas Kasparov is more similar to his teacher Botvinnik (who was also the teacher of Karpov) in that they were both logical players, who relied on their enormous opening preparations, their willingness to work hard, their exact calculations, and their strategic sense. Fischer is somewhere in between.

Even though Karpov is often seen as a strategic player, such a characteristic is misleading, because he is primarily a practical, pragmatic player who does not try to dig so deeply into the game as Kasparov and Botvinnik, both of which are good example of "scientific research" players. Fischer was also a researcher, who calculated variations like a computer in a similar manner as Kasparov, but he has never been particularly good in dynamic positions, and he was not a great strategist but shared more of the practial approach of Karpov.

Like Aljechin, Kasparov prefers tactical solutions (combinations) to strategic maneuvering, but that doesn't mean that he is not a strategist. Karpov prefers to rely on his positional sense and likes strategic maneuvering, but that doesn't mean that he is a strategist in essence. Fischer doesn't have the same natural positional sense as Karpov, and he was more of a tactical player than a strategic, but that doesn't make him a strategist either.

My point is that all three of those great players -- Karpov, Fischer, and Kasparov -- had the hardness that is such a great asset if you want to become the best chess player in the world. The new World Champion, Viswanathan Anand, doesn't seem to have that toughness (look at how he crumbled under the pressure in his first match against Kasparov), so it is not impossible to succeed without it, but I think that almost every one of those who clearly show it are logical types.

[Rick]

@ Rick: tell me: if you have a bunch of people who all believe A=B and there is another one who believes A is actually is C and is right, with the latter group being only 10% of the first in quantity of people, and then you go and gather statistics among everybody, you will get accurate results?

I'm not suggesting at all that the majority opinion is correct. I think there is a tendency for majority opinions in socionics to be correct more often than minority ones, however, and it cannot really be any other way in socionics. In empirical science the situation is different. There everyone can be wrong because they lack data. In socionics concepts are basically what we agree to have them be, so by definition the majority -- which defines the mainstream conceptual framework in the first place -- has to be more correct most of the time. I don't know if that makes sense -- it's a convoluted logical situation

My main goal in studying popular opinion is to make sure I am perceiving Kasparov accurately. Typing him is a secondary goal.

[Rick]

My point is that all three of those great players -- Karpov, Fischer, and Kasparov -- had the hardness that is such a great asset if you want to become the best chess player in the world. The new World Champion, Viswanathan Anand, doesn't seem to have that toughness (look at how he crumbled under the pressure in his first match against Kasparov), so it is not impossible to succeed without it, but I think that almost every one of those who clearly show it are logical types.

Thank you for the interesting post. I want to point out that what you've described as "hardness" is actually more easily associated with than with logic. You've described the will to win, crush your opponent, and apply pressure. Really, this is closest to . The best and most intimidating chess player I've seen was dominant. His degree of focus and *physical* involvement in the game was tremendous. He was quick and decisive, but also calculating and ruthless.

Instead of looking at chess through the usual "planning ahead" paradigm that suggests an intuitive focus to the game, look at the unbending concentration and discipline it takes to play. Which types are more likely to get distracted, let down their guard, and avoid grueling calculations in their head? I would suggest types. Also, there is a very significant spatial aspect to the game that is not present in many games such as dominos, monopoly, etc. The importance of space and keeping track of pieces and territory in chess is supreme. This, again, is a task.

[Rick]

Here's another video in Russian where Kasparov is arguing with two logical types (standing -- LSI, in my opinion; sitting -- ILI possibly) who pick apart the consistently faulty logic of his statements:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

Kasparov can hardly be a logical type. Under pressure all he relies on here is rhetoric, exaggeration, moralizing, personal attacks, and pressure. No logic whatsoever.

[Rick]

One more video of Kasparov speaking at a conference of the "Another Russia" party (in Russian).

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...52414602966858

I have seen many IEEs speak in similar situations, and I've never seen one constantly move so vigorously and decisively all throughout a speech. IEEs have more restrained and wispy movements; K. is very vigorous and moves with his whole body at once, not just separate parts of it like most intuitives.

The speech itself doesn't really have any substance to it other than, "We are doing well. We will win." The goal of his party, as Kasparov states, is simply "to dismantle" Putin's "cowardly, corrupt, and cruel regime." Again, a message.

My first choice now is SEE.

[Rick]

a man has two arms and two legs, but lads, lets agree he has 6 of both! isn't that cool??

You can think what you want, but 95% of anatomists maintain that man has 5 limbs.

[anndelise]

a man has two arms and two legs, but lads, lets agree he has 6 of both! isn't that cool??

You can think what you want, but 95% of anatomists maintain that man has 5 limbs.

(literally, i laughed out loud!)

[Rick]

Here's an additional, more informal video of Kasparov talking about chess:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

In the first, informal part of this presentation, Kasparov talks about fun and exciting aspects of chess history and brings up human aspects. He is very animated (in intonation and body language) and confident entertaining people and generating involvement and laughter and holds himself very confidently. When he starts talking about chess moves that no longer have a human dimension to them, he becomes quite a bit less animated and a bit dull.

In my opinion, this suggests that he is more interested in conveying "exciting" things that will generate an emotional response than in providing analysis and showing people things that work.

Rick, I think you should take into account Renin Dichotomies in this specific instance. I know you're not a fan of them due to the sometimes excessive complications they add to the model, but what you are referring to are typical aspects of emotivism of the emotivion-creating/construc-creating dichotomy, and they are coherent with the LIE hypothesis.

The irony is that Reinin himself typed Kasparov as SEE

http://www.isra-trainings.com/reinin.../napoleon.html

[Rick]

"reinin himself" said that whatever F is done to you is Fe and whatever F is done among people other than you is Fi or something like that which did not make any sense what so ever. besides, if i will tell you you are a chinese word whatever one say, you will want to double check, unless you are ready to get put, by everybody on the street, into the state of hypnosis and get suggested whatever comes into their mind. tell me that kings never made mistakes.

I think you are picking at imaginary logical flaws here when no such statements are even being made. I'm not even trying to make the points you are implying by your sarcastic remarks. As if I am swayed by Reinin's or anyone else's typing of Kasparov, or am taking surveys to decide how to type Kasparov! Look at SEE on the list of "stats" I gathered from different sources.

[FDG]

Actually I agree with Phaedrus position and I think Rick is offering a pretty limited perspective on the matter. Why wouldn't a logical type get angry and react emotionally when arguing with other logical types? Surely one video that shows this cannot be a clue to typing more than how the person lives its everyday life.

[Rick]

i believe in statistics, though i cannot ignore the possibility that the data that you are using is wrong. i mean maybe the majority typed him wrong. after all, socionics is at it's beginning only and if you read functional descriptions around and browse russian socionics forums, you'll get striked, as well as read some of the articles by "socionists" and examine the information they use to base their typings on, you might say, maaaan. the thing about it, there is the facts and their is our learning of them. right now, we are getting there, but some things are wrong. and if people get too stuck up on "existing works" and dogmas, especially when there is nothing to dogmatise yet really, and if you do, you only stop socionics from developing into a body of knowledge that reflects reality, easily understandable and applicable.

Of course. I have been through all of this first-hand in the socionics community here in Ukraine and have had to develop my own attitudes towards all the mess you are talking about and choose my own set of coordinates. It doesn't bother me much any more because I've passed through all the crap and now have a good idea of where the better ideas and tools are and who in socionics actually knows what they are talking about and has a working theoretical and practical system.

[Rick]

Actually I agree with Phaedrus position and I think Rick is offering a pretty limited perspective on the matter. Why wouldn't a logical type get angry and react emotionally when arguing with other logical types? Surely one video that shows this cannot be a clue to typing more than how the person lives its everyday life.

OK, but the other two logical types are arguing with Kasparov using logic (especially the one who's standing -- who then resorts to a bit of forceful intimidation at one point late in the show). I've now watched about 8 videos of Kasparov, and he's the same everywhere plus or minus a few degrees of agitation. The only place where his behavior is notably different is where he's outlining chess games at the master class.

As for K.'s everyday life, I would love to know more about it.

It's possible my view seems like a "limited perspective." I generally get the whole idea first, and then see how the details fit in, so it may seem like I'm picking out isolated arguments as proof.

[FDG]

Actually I agree with Phaedrus position and I think Rick is offering a pretty limited perspective on the matter. Why wouldn't a logical type get angry and react emotionally when arguing with other logical types? Surely one video that shows this cannot be a clue to typing more than how the person lives its everyday life.

OK, but the other two logical types are arguing with Kasparov using logic (especially the one who's standing -- who then resorts to a bit of forceful intimidation at one point late in the show). I've now watched about 8 videos of Kasparov, and he's the same everywhere plus or minus a few degrees of agitation. The only place where his behavior is notably different is where he's outlining chess games at the master class.

What about the interview with Mahler?

[Gilly]

The interview shows some Ne of his, I think, which is probably why Maher, ILE who usually makes fun of guests incessantly, shows him respect (even if he does have to deflect some of Kasparov's directness). There is also definitely some Te in there, but no Ti to speak of as far as I can see; he doesn't make any really elegantly constructed arguments, he just states relevant facts and tries to reframe Maher's and the audience's perspective on the issue at hand. He shows typical Fi-esque people skills by completely neglecting the general mood, most of Maher's attempts at humor, and the crowd's initial reactions, and yet still making statements that have an "ethical punch," making people laugh and provoking responses that inspire general confidence in his position.

He doesn't get mad at Maher because he basically steamrolls him every time Maher asks a question or puts forth a view that Kasparov isn't ok with.

[Rick]

(error when posting)

[Rick]

Actually I agree with Phaedrus position and I think Rick is offering a pretty limited perspective on the matter. Why wouldn't a logical type get angry and react emotionally when arguing with other logical types? Surely one video that shows this cannot be a clue to typing more than how the person lives its everyday life.

OK, but the other two logical types are arguing with Kasparov using logic (especially the one who's standing -- who then resorts to a bit of forceful intimidation at one point late in the show). I've now watched about 8 videos of Kasparov, and he's the same everywhere plus or minus a few degrees of agitation. The only place where his behavior is notably different is where he's outlining chess games at the master class.

What about the interview with Mahler?

There he still uses a lot of rhetoric and sarcasm as in other situations, but is more in control of the situation. I think the reason he owns Maher in that video is that he interrupts Maher several times and answers swiftly, confidently, and directly, whereas Maher is sort of speaking in hints and suggestions, with more and more hesitation as the interview goes on. I think this is more of a affect on an ILE than .

[FDG]

Are you sure? He's listing facts and connecting them in an historical fashion, and with logical chains. I think that specific case shows some similarity between him and Expat.

[Rick]

Are you sure? He's listing facts and connecting them in an historical fashion, and with logical chains. I think that specific case shows some similarity between him and Expat.

I agree. I see what you're saying. But there's a lot of and ethical playfulness accompanying this as well.

[FDG]

Are you sure? He's listing facts and connecting them in an historical fashion, and with logical chains. I think that specific case shows some similarity between him and Expat.

I agree. I see what you're saying. But there's a lot of and ethical playfulness accompanying this as well.

Yeah, uhm, true.

[Phaedrus]

I want to point out that what you've described as "hardness" is actually more easily associated with than with logic. You've described the will to win, crush your opponent, and apply pressure. Really, this is closest to .

That's too simplistic. At least we cannot draw any certain conclusions about people's types based on such considerations. I'm not sure that I have managed to explain what I mean when I talk about "hardness", "toughness", etc, but in every case I have in mind, at least in my own real life encounters with different chess players of probably every socionic type, I have only found that kind of hardness in logical types.

I know at least two SEE chess players, and they have almost nothing of that "hardness". They play mostly for fun, and their attitude to chess is clearly different from for example Fischer's, who has said, among a lot of other things in the same spirit: "Chess is war over the board. The object is to crush the opponent's mind." Both Fischer and Karpov are introverted, logical types, but only Karpov is likely an LSI of those two.

The playing style of LSIs are typically similar to Karpov's. LSIs usually stick to the same safe and normal openings all the time. They are positional players whose weakest spot is tactical combinations, since that requires an ability to find unusual, unexpected and creative solutions, an area in which LSIs are not that good. They prefer "normal" moves based on classical considerations, and they lack a natural feel for the dynamics of a position.

And what shall we say about, for example, Mikhail Botvinnik? He was clearly an XXTj type of some sort, and yet he is a very good example of that hardness I am talking about.

Which types are more likely to get distracted, let down their guard, and avoid grueling calculations in their head? I would suggest types.

There is some truth to that. The ILE players I know personally tend to make calculation mistakes. Some of them clearly prefer not to calculate in depth, and when they try to they are not exact. At least two of them have a strong, natural positional sense. I am still trying to understand exactly the essence of the playing style of ILEs, because there might be at least two different versions of it. Besides the positional, cautious and slightly passive style some of them have, some others seem to excel in more dynamic positions where they are genuinely creative in finding tactical solutions to the problems that arise.

The same considerations might apply to IEEs, but I am not sure about that either. One of my best friends among chess players is an IEE, and he has a very good positional sense that includes a better feel for dynamics than we find in LSIs. He is very lazy, though. He don't read much and he is really bad at calculating variation. He excels in simple positions and is similar to Ulf Andersson in style when he is at his best. I am not sure about Andersson's type, but he is most likely an XNFp. Another player that might have been an IEE (but that is not at all certain) is David Bronstein, who was a player with an improvising, romantic style that is well-known for his tendency to lose himself in "daydreaming" during play. More than once he thought 40 minutes or more on his first move to get in the right, creative state of mind. As a consequence he often got into time trouble. Even though Bronstein excelled in tactical combinations and calculated well, he had a great intuition and based many of his decisions on it.

Also, there is a very significant spatial aspect to the game that is not present in many games such as dominos, monopoly, etc. The importance of space and keeping track of pieces and territory in chess is supreme. This, again, is a task.

That is a very weak and probably incorrect argument, at least in relation to chess.

[Rick]

Also, there is a very significant spatial aspect to the game that is not present in many games such as dominos, monopoly, etc. The importance of space and keeping track of pieces and territory in chess is supreme. This, again, is a task.

That is a very weak and probably incorrect argument, at least in relation to chess.

I disagree. There are other aspects of chess as well. Nothing in the game is unknown or left to chance. All the opponent's pieces are in plain view, and there are no "wild cards" or other random intrusions in the game. This, I think, makes the game less interesting to types. There is no guesswork, no speculation, no hidden pieces. The range of options is severely limited. The placement of the pieces is always the same at the start of every game.

Compare that to another battle game like "Risk." There you draw cards, roll dice, aren't sure of the other person's cards, etc. etc. You have to work with probabilities. Strategy may change drastically from game to game depending on the initial draw of cards. The level of uncertainty in Risk is far greater than in chess.

[Gilly]

I agree with Rick 100% that chess is largely Sensate in nature. You see the other person's pieces on the table in front of you, you have to make calculations about the spatial progression of the game, the abilities of the pieces are measured by how the physical pieces move in a confined space right in front of you...you could formulate strategies using N and T, perhaps, but for Kasparov's style there is no T involved whatsoever outside of knowing the abilities of the pieces and the rules that apply to them, and these are linked largely to , so there's really no need for Thinking of any kind. I don't know a lot about him, but I've heard that he's known for making brash circumstantial sacrifices of his pieces in order to gain short-term strategic advantages; again, sounds like a blatant disregard for Ti and Ni.