As the really amateur chess player that I am, I've been thinking about which type would be the most suitable for winning a chess match. Some people would say an INTj, but I don't know many INTj who are good at chess. In my opinion, some people think that chess is mostly about logic, it has indeed logic, but it is in fact just an auxiliary tool for manipulating the game's internal mechanics. I have LII friends, and none of them are good at playing chess. Surprisingly the two best alpha chess players I know personally are one ESFj and an ISFp. I find it amusing how some people really think that they can win a chess match by simply fiercely using logic on the game. My opinion is that for being a good chess player one needs to have a really strong function and also , since Te is the algorithmic logic. But I didn't come here for boosting ILIs' egos, even though I really think they can be really good chess players. My point is that there are even good chess players who are IEI and EIE, you just need to remember of Aleister Crowley who, in my opinion, could have been an EIE and he was a good enough chess player.
My question then is: does it make any sense that some psychologists, scientists and internet tests use someone's performance in strategy games, including chess, as a criterion for concluding someone's level of logical-mathematical intelligence? Don't you guys also think that strategy games have much more to do with forecasting oncoming events than finding the logical identity between concepts, deducting the connection between ideas, and developing a tautological reasoning over logical entities, like in algebra? What I mean is: don't you think that strategy has much more to do with than with ? I know that even though the largest part of mathematics is connected to Ti, there are parts that are really favorable to Te types, like algorithms. But in this case, wouldn't it be erroneous clustering in the same category Te and Ti as a same kind of intelligence called Logical-Mathematical? Don't you think guys, that Scientists and Modern Learning therapists got it wrong?