SLE and ILI in playing chess (ESTp vs INTp)

[07490]

From the impression I got between these two people, I believe this was their respectable types. They were playing in the parks for hours, with like 15 people crowded together watching them play for money. It was 1 dollar a game, When I got there they were playing speed limit games where it was setup that SLE had 5 minutes and the ILI had 4 minutes of time as it was agreed and setup this way for all their games.. The first game I watch the SLE won where I wasn't really paying attention to the way they play, When I watch the second game, however, I can easily noticed how both player thinks/and their information element being used in making strategy moves. I think both players had enough experiences just by the way they open the game, both of them weren't that far in terms of experiences and skills and they memorized all the openings and the correct move you have to make, which shows that they have been playing for years, I can easily picked up the ILI's move becuase I know exactly what he was doing, and he was calm and collected, the SLE was agressive he seems to attack and attack but when the ILI would makes certain move and it throws him back becuase he doesn't expect traps, which I think was the SLE's downfall. where as the ILI(not that he was smarter than the SLE) but he seem to know what to care about and what to not care about in certain attacks and understanding the potential of these attacks. If the SLE win, it's because the ILI couldn't handle the pressure the SLE put on when attacking for a mate. But it was rare. as I think the ILI can just know inside his head that whether or not it was worth paying attention to his attack and how he can avoid when the SLE have enough pieces on his side of the baord where he then make one or two moves to counterattack the SLE back leaving him into a vulnerable position since the SLE was so invested in attacking and not defending . I also think that Dynamic types has an overall advantage over Static types in this game becuase of the pattern it emerge that the ILI see Thur time. Another thing is that the two different style, NI leading and NI dual seeking plays a whole different kind of game. When two NI types sit down and play, just like how you see two NI types arguing about socionics here, the NI types are in the same page, where as the SLE, again although very good player and see the board well of where to push and not, just do not see the ILI's traps where one move can cost him a game. His TI is too invested in a certain position. And at the end the SLE owe the ILI 18 dollars for the day.

[Microknight]

Neat. I’ve been wondering if there are any type specific peculiarities as it relates to chess, that is to say, are certain types likely to play certain ways and other types in others?

Inquiry: What kind of games were most common and which openings were used? Open games? Closed? I wonder if there is a correlation between that ILI’s playing style and my own.

And now a project suitable for another thread: I’ve been thinking about trying to type 16 famous chess players as each of the types, but I am not confident in my typing abilities, so there are only a couple that I am reasonably sure of.

[Jarno]

I was once analysing how me (ILI) and my friends (LSI) (LIE) play strategy pc games.

The aspect that most stood out was Initiating / Responding.

While the introverts like to passively dig in and wait, the extravert likes to attack agressively.

Whether it's type related or coincedence, I don't know.

[717495]

I'd say can be pretty good at strategy games, since what it basically does is assess the efficiency of actions, once or gives a very personalized and focused observation. That with which is basically planning ahead and looking for what will happen from an observing standpoint, and I assume these two together make the ideal chess ego. However any type with enough experience can master this game. for instance would make a decent gambit, and more often than not catch onto the opponents plan via a rational judgment, say (along with the uncertainty of if that is what will happen or will one of these other 10 things happen, and the situation becomes blurry if doesn't have proper definitions of everything.) However often than not the user soon becomes distracted by what could be, and all his own ideas, or completely overlooks the situation by examining potential of every piece (which usually can't realistically happen, and that's when I begin to lack focus). would be able to cut some options, but not always chose the best option.

[meatburger]

I once watched an SLE and what i think was an ILE/ILI playing head to head at poker. It was at the end of the night and the entire pot was up for grabs (few hundred dollars) The ILE/ILI appeared smarter than him and it was a great battle, but the SLE was so confident and aggressive he won in the end. I think he put pressure on the ILE which caused him to make mistakes.

I was once analysing how me (ILI) and my friends (LSI) (LIE) play strategy pc games.

I have noticed differences in FPS games in how different types play. I am very fluid and smooth, as is an INFp i know. My LSE and LIE friends are more square in their movements. Also the LIE will sit squarely to his pc up nice and straight whereas i will be slouched back in my chair. There is no clear advantage. If i or the INFp are in a good happy mood we win, but a lot of the time the LIE's focus just dominates. I typically go on like huge 15 people killing streaks then i go cold, while he just constantly racks up kills. Im also constantly moving and taking no real care, relying on my reflexes and wits, while LIE and LSE like to plan everything and camp in windows etc.

Oh and the LIE plays C&C i think hes in the top 100. He rushes as you said, although in C&C i think most players who win do.

[Gilly]

Heh, rushing in RTS games is all about Ti, as are most short game strategies I think. They rely on a very rigid playing structure, executing the most efficient strategy planned for a particular space of time, and doing it perfectly to minimize the time taken. Later in games I think Te is more vital, to make sure you are expending resources judiciously, expanding in time, etc. Si is also crucial for micromanaging in battles.

[tereg]

This topic reminds me of this interview



The notable thing is how he talks about crushing the other player's ego. Very insightful personality-wise

[07490]

I wonder how play their games, for me at least, I can easily create possibilities, and does that once in a while when I see myself getting stuck.

[07490]

I'd say can be pretty good at strategy games, since what it basically does is assess the efficiency of actions, once or gives a very personalized and focused observation. That with which is basically planning ahead and looking for what will happen from an observing standpoint, and I assume these two together make the ideal chess ego. However any type with enough experience can master this game. for instance would make a decent gambit, and more often than not catch onto the opponents plan via a rational judgment, say (along with the uncertainty of if that is what will happen or will one of these other 10 things happen, and the situation becomes blurry if doesn't have proper definitions of everything.) However often than not the user soon becomes distracted by what could be, and all his own ideas, or completely overlooks the situation by examining potential of every piece (which usually can't realistically happen, and that's when I begin to lack focus). would be able to cut some options, but not always chose the best option.

I avoid this kind of burliness, there is just too much vulnerability to your part and opponent can easily wipe you out if you are not careful. when you create these distraction you mention the Ne types do, however, really really helps, but getting lost in an idea, I try to avoid that.


I agree with what you said.

[Banana Pancakes]

I think ILI is the optimum chess player assuming no strict time pressures.

I'm actually a fairly decent player but I'm best when I sit, pause, and use my Ni a bit. Against someone who runs down the clock pondering each move, I tend to lose because I'm impatient and go with my gut instead of planning more.

[crazedrat]

In starcraft/warcraft3 alpha NTs will try new strategies that may or may not work, and you sort of have to think of a way to beat the strategy on the spot .. usually, though, the strategy sucks and you can beat it. Gamma NTs will use the same 'most powerful' strategy over and over. Sometimes they are easy to surprise with an effective but rarely seen strategy, and in those cases they die really easy

[xerx]

Heh, rushing in RTS games is all about Ti, as are most short game strategies I think. They rely on a very rigid playing structure, executing the most efficient strategy planned for a particular space of time, and doing it perfectly to minimize the time taken. Later in games I think Te is more vital, to make sure you are expending resources judiciously, expanding in time, etc. Si is also crucial for micromanaging in battles.

NeTi: Out of my friends, I'm the undefeated master of rushes. I can maximize the effectiveness of zerglings like none of them can, and I can maneuver a very small squad like crazy through every orifice of the enemy base, wreaking havoc on their economy. That's when the Si is taken care of for me.

Where I suck is later on in the game, having to micromanage and keep track of large swathes of units and multiple bases. Also just getting my economy up and running is a pain.

I think ILI is the optimum chess player assuming no strict time pressures.

I'm actually a fairly decent player but I'm best when I sit, pause, and use my Ni a bit. Against someone who runs down the clock pondering each move, I tend to lose because I'm impatient and go with my gut instead of planning more.

Ditto. I can only think for 1/2 a second about each move.

[717495]

In starcraft/warcraft3 alpha NTs will try new strategies that may or may not work, and you sort of have to think of a way to beat the strategy on the spot .. usually, though, the strategy sucks and you can beat it. Gamma NTs will use the same 'most powerful' strategy over and over. Sometimes they are easy to surprise with an effective but rarely seen strategy, and in those cases they die really easy

My ISTj friend actually used to switch his game up all the time, and he would pull of some pretty crazy things and win.

I however am not necessarily super creative with my gameplay, but I do sometimes tend to not want to do the same old same old, and that usually makes me lose. But I had more fun that way. Winning isn't necessarily more fun than losing but making a sweet impact, because the game is the same thing over and over, if you're just going to master it every time and never risk anything, then you're a loser in real life. Not that it matters though I'm just saying what I think. I also believe that the games I do win a lot are the really complex one's with multiple options for heroes etc, with good balance. I can definitely see a Gamma NT master an unbalanced game and constantly win.

On a lot of games its mostly about teamwork/leadership. Not sure how type related that is.

[Khamelion]

When I play chess I get frustrated trying map out a strategy, so I usually kind of....uhh....bum rush? the enemy. Kinda like running in swinging and hoping you hit vital spots. I get ruthless towards the end too....and extremely invested. This is a game I take personally for some reason...I can't stand losing most things but chess its nearly unbearable.

[Eva Frost]

I wonder how play their games, for me at least, I can easily create possibilities, and does that once in a while when I see myself getting stuck.

A former world champion, Mikhail Tal, was most likely Ne-lead (I have him pegged as IEE, but I may be wrong). His games blow me away. He played aggressively, but also with more imagination than any other player I've seen, sacrificing pieces out of the blue in ways that nobody else would ever have come up with, and that very few of his opponents could cope with. He admitted to not really caring whether an attack or a sacrifice was 100% sound; what was more interesting to him was whether it would be a fun game with interesting tactical opportunities.

I'm an ILI who plays club-level chess (granted, I'm kind of horrible, but mostly because I'm a beginner). I'm regularly told that I play very aggressively and tactically – it's been remarked that on the board I am the polar opposite of my everyday self, as I enjoy making dramatic moves mostly because they seem amusing.

[Pookie]

Strategy trumps tactics in chess.

[DaftPunk]

Strategy trumps tactics in chess.

Until you reach a very high level tactics ALWAYS beats strategy in chess.

[Pookie]

Until you reach a very high level tactics ALWAYS beats strategy in chess.

Given two equally skilled people, the focus on the long game I think is more important than constantly setting up better situations in the now.

Checkers though. No strategy, all tactics. My kind of game.

[DaftPunk]

Given two equally skilled people, the focus on the long game I think is more important than constantly setting up better situations in the now.

Checkers though. No strategy, all tactics. My kind of game.

Strategy in chess means eg. focusing on the queenside to overroll the opponent later on the kingside
Tactics means calculating the next moves. Theoretically tactics is indefinite in chess. That's how chess computer work.

These terms are predifined through the chess vocabulary.

Strategy plays only a role if you become very good because you have to know a lot about the game to play strategical. On an intermeiate level people will loose figures through tactical manouvres and loose therefore not because they choose the wrong long term strategy

You can get pretty far being a very good tactician and a very bad strategist eg. chess computer. If you're a bad tactician you'll never become a good strategist because you'll never reach the point to play against good enough opponents to understand the game strategically.

Edit: Other example Deep Blue beat Kasparov. Deep blue is the ultimate tactician and has zero strategy. KAsparov is a very good tactician and extremely good Strategist.

[xerx]

lol @ the 2009 me. Anyway, I'm still the undisputed master of Zerg rushes, but the correlation with Ti/Ne/whatever is spurious at best. It's probably all or mostly about motor reflexes.

[Pookie]

Strategy in chess means eg. focusing on the queenside to overroll the opponent later on the kingside
Tactics means calculating the next moves. Theoretically tactics is indefinite in chess. That's how chess computer work.

These terms are predifined through the chess vocabulary.

Strategy plays only a role if you become very good because you have to know a lot about the game to play strategical. On an intermeiate level people will loose figures through tactical manouvres and loose therefore not because they choose the wrong long term strategy

You can get pretty far being a very good tactician and a very bad strategist eg. chess computer. If you're a bad tactician you'll never become a good strategist because you'll never reach the point to play against good enough opponents to understand the game strategically.

Edit: Other example Deep Blue beat Kasparov. Deep blue is the ultimate tactician and has zero strategy. KAsparov is a very good tactician and extremely good Strategist.

Yeah see we're speaking different languages. I was going by traditional usage of the words, I didnt realize there was a hyper specific definition of those words in chess context.