Most suitable type for winning a chess match

[Quote Unquote]

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?

[Aiss]

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.

About chess - have a look at Chess: Psychology - Wikipedia. As in, "not type related", at least not in the way you mean here. On the other hand, it may apply to amateurs playing with each other, to a certain extent.

I imagine the same goes for many strategy games, especially since many of those are similar to each other.

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?

Most tests of these abilities are biased in favor of intuition, and that's about where relation to socionics ends. Variations within groups are bigger than variations between groups.

Why would it be a problem if skills usually associated with several functions (and by no means guaranteed to their users) were grouped together, anyway?

[Quote Unquote]

Thank you for answering, I'll most gladly answer tomorrow and read everything, thanks for sharing this information.

[Krig the Viking]

This is just pure theory untempered by evidence, but it seems to me that the dialectical-algorithmic cognitive style, as described in http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...g-gulenko.html, would lend itself best to playing chess. So that would include ILI, SEI, EIE, and LSE. That's not to say no other types could be good chess players, just that, theoretically anyway, those types may find that chess comes more naturally to them.

I'm LII -- most people expect me to be good at chess because I'm "smart", but I'm really not.

[MatthewZ]

Nonsense, I have a whole storage of trophies from Chess tournaments.

[krieger]

My feels trapped in the world of chess. I want to invent and create things, not act according to a rigid set of rules on a square grid matrix of causally deterministic interaction sequences.

[MatthewZ]

Chess is a game for young brains. It's something to be learned when young. I took chess lessons when I was a child, but even when I was still 12 I was usually one of the older kids there. There's a lot of immediately recognizing the situation for what it is.

I've lost most of my love for chess, but I'll still play anyone here out of ego. It gets a little old after a while, and that's the exact basis of chess theory: studying what wins against other moves and how often it does so. It's interesting to study and apply the laws of statistics to, but after a while applying the same patterns in similar circumstances gets boring.

As a side note, Chess is an art more than anything. Chess culture, surprising to some, is very rich.

[Brilliand]

I'm good at chess, though I haven't played in any tournaments.

Labcoat, how is it your Limiting function feels trapped?

[The Exception]

Chess is too slow moving for tastes and takes too long to master.

[Azeroffs]

I love chess, and I was decently good at a young age (~10-12). I used to legitimately beat adults at it, and no one my age could compare. I've never been in any competitions though, and I haven't played in a while.

[munenori2]

Chess is cool, but I like more colorful strategy games.

[Logos]

I'm terrible at chess. I never have the patience for it, so I usually move the pieces around randomly, though according to the rules, to see what results I can achieve.

[717495]

I see lots of Se types or people good at Se who are good at chess, commonly SLE, SLI, SEE etc. Seems like a sensor game where you really have to scan for things and find quick, simple, and realistic probabilities, and can't be distracted too much by intuitive insights or especially abstract thought. S egos I know are able to come to clever and tactful insights in the game, but its based more on the moment, focused on real time. Though I also think some LIEs and ILEs are pretty good at this game, since they're more extroverted. Introverts, especially intuitive introverts, usually think more and don't have as much patience to scan things and see a lot of whats going on in the outer world. They can become distracted by their inner thoughts and loose track of time. Ni for instance, is usually so lost in memories and the flow of time, and typical LIIs, like the ones I know, are very easily bored of the game because it doesn't fit with their Ne and barely lightly with their Ti. LSIs, from experience, can get really good at the game and seek to conquer in a light, where Ni HA comes in handy because its not so deliberately blanketing. Actually IEI more than ILI would be interested in chess and mastering its mysteries, due to Ti HA. I see chess having some Ti foundation to it, but mainly doesn't need a whole lot of strength in Ti, versus Si or Se.

Overall, quadra would be Beta, strength would be Se/Si.

[Krig the Viking]

I'm terrible at chess. I never have the patience for it, so I usually move the pieces around randomly, though according to the rules, to see what results I can achieve.

I always try to employ the "crazy newbie who barely knows what he's doing and makes unexpected moves in hopes of throwing the other guy off balance" strategy, mostly because it's my only one.

This is also my strategy is First Person Shooters.

[Brilliand]

I'm terrible at chess. I never have the patience for it, so I usually move the pieces around randomly, though according to the rules, to see what results I can achieve.

I have a friend who does almost this... probably an LII as well. He seems like he's decent at the game, but he likes to just mess around, and I tend to join him in that (once I've satisfied my ego by getting a clear upper hand in the first game of the day).

[MatthewZ]

People who don't take chess seriously and fudge games because of duration used to be the thing that annoyed me the most.

[Timeless]

Me and my friend:

ILE: Hey, let's play chess and see if it works over TCP/IP.
ESE: Okay.

(We play for like 2 minutes)

ILE: Cool, it works.

[Exit game]

[Logos]

People who don't take chess seriously and fudge games because of duration used to be the thing that annoyed me the most.

People who take the small things in life seriously, like chess, annoy me. But why does it annoy you when people do not take chess seriously? How are you annoyed or personally offended? And why do you take chess seriously?

[FDG]

I remember teachers tried to teach me when I was like, 7-8 years old. I hated the game tho, it was slow, boring and I couldn't see the point, so I just moved the pieces randomly.

[MatthewZ]

People who take the small things in life seriously, like chess, annoy me. But why does it annoy you when people do not take chess seriously? How are you annoyed or personally offended? And why do you take chess seriously?

It's mostly because I've had chess etiquette ingrained into my mind since I was little. They enjoyable part of chess, at least for me, is actually playing the game and knowing that your opponent is doing their best. It's partially excusable in the midst of online play, but when someone sits down to play a game, that's a commitment of their mind until the game's conclusion, barring extreme circumstances. There is no fun in playing against a player that does not consider their moves rationally. They're simple to defeat and there is no challenge presented in doing so. If I'm going to give someone my attention for 30 minutes or so, I'd expect the same in return.

Then there's the "I'm bored; I quit" route taken by some. Receiving that from another person is the same feeling one gets whenever they learn that their hard efforts gain nothing. Although the obligations of finishing a game are more often understood than explicitly declared before starting a game, a person leaving a chess game on a whim violates the agreement they consented to when they began the game. Surrender in the endgame with a very clear victor in sight is acceptable as it saves both players time, but surrender mid-game is simply rude.

When I play chess, I want an actual game. Anything less feels like a complete waste of time.

[FDG]

It's mostly because I've had chess etiquette ingrained into my mind since I was little. They enjoyable part of chess, at least for me, is actually playing the game and knowing that your opponent is doing their best. It's partially excusable in the midst of online play, but when someone sits down to play a game, that's a commitment of their mind until the game's conclusion, barring extreme circumstances. There is no fun in playing against a player that does not consider their moves rationally. They're simple to defeat and there is no challenge presented in doing so. If I'm going to give someone my attention for 30 minutes or so, I'd expect the same in return.

Then there's the "I'm bored; I quit" route taken by some. Receiving that from another person is the same feeling one gets whenever they learn that their hard efforts gain nothing. Although the obligations of finishing a game are more often understood than explicitly declared before starting a game, a person leaving a chess game on a whim violates the agreement they consented to when they began the game. Surrender in the endgame with a very clear victor in sight is acceptable as it saves both players time, but surrender mid-game is simply rude.

When I play chess, I want an actual game. Anything less feels like a complete waste of time.

Yeah but...who cares. It's just chess. Let's not be crybabies.

[crazedrat]

the article suggests an interest and passion for the game is much more important than type. it's actually the same in RTS games like starcraft.

[Fabelie]

When I play chess, I want an actual game. Anything less feels like a complete waste of time.

Agreed, however, when I play chess I usually need a warm up game before I can turn my full attentions to it.

[April]

I'm pretty terrible at chess. I set the difficulty level to 1 out of 10 on my computer, and still lost three times in a row. I can't keep track of which pieces do what. I must be mentally challenged.

However, I'm a research analyst and deal with numbers, data, and statistics every day. I feel like I should be good at it. Go figure.

[Creepy-Pied Piper]

Removed at User Request

[ArchonAlarion]

My feels trapped in the world of chess. I want to invent and create things, not act according to a rigid set of rules on a square grid matrix of causally deterministic interaction sequences.

Same lol.


I usually get bored and imagine new rules (using multiple boards, assigning points values for each piece and allowing custom chess armies, etc).


*edit: Better Game:

[Beautiful sky]

My father did not see value in it to teach me how to play even though he knows how. Maybe my future husband will be more engaging with me in this regard.

[xerx]

I'm pretty good at solving chess problems but I'm horrible at playing the game itself. I lose against the computer all the time.

[krieger]

Labcoat, how is it your Limiting function feels trapped?

They're very strongly inclined to make one feel trapped, imo. Limiting/Creating/Static functions feel like you've come to understand the problem to the point your understanding can not increase anymore. Usually this state is both too pessimistic (no hope for improvement) and too optimistic ("I figured it all out!") at the same time, though. It's just a mentality.

[Beautiful sky]

This is just pure theory untempered by evidence, but it seems to me that the dialectical-algorithmic cognitive style, as described in http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...g-gulenko.html, would lend itself best to playing chess. So that would include ILI, SEI, EIE, and LSE. That's not to say no other types could be good chess players, just that, theoretically anyway, those types may find that chess comes more naturally to them.

I'm LII -- most people expect me to be good at chess because I'm "smart", but I'm really not.

You forgot SLI and LSI in this analysis, although skill level would be a question, but regard and "like" of the game is present. This has to do with the level of attention and focus.

[Crispy]

I'm pretty good at chess, but I do the same first 4 moves I've been repeating since I was 8. Then I freeball my way to victory 70% of the time.