Chess: Is it type-related?

[DirectorAbbie]

I doubt there is any type without some representative who plays chess. But surely the manner in which people plays varies according to type. This morning I played against my SLE brother with Brilliand watching. Brilliand mentioned planning a strategy by looking at every possibility. I called him a holographic.

When I play chess, I don't plan more than three moves in advance, I focus on positions more than time (number of moves), I drop my strategy and make a new one for every turn, and I like the knights more than the bishops.

[Skeptic]

Chess at a professional/really good level is not, as that's just execution of ridiculous amounts of memorized openings, responses, mid game etc. (with the excuse of later game craaaaziness).

However if you got someone all into it and stuff who isn't a master, and told them to sit down and plan something out/explain it to you/observe them while they do it, you would theoretically be able to make connections between that and their type, albeit with much difficulty. Proficiency is probably not related.

[Crispy]

This is the pawn setup I've used every game since I was like 10:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[Lobo]

I really got into chess some time ago, got a few books, became a member of the USCF and participated in an official tournament. And yes, I do agree that there might be some type-related things going on when it comes to how you play chess. Since I'm not even close to chessmaster level, I decided to learn/memorize unconventional, but studied, openings that would take another opponent of my level off-guard. Then, try not to lose pieces necessarily through exchanges (that's a noob way to play chess, hehe). I focus a lot on the mental aspect of chess, as in factors that go into play during a game that affect your decision-making skills, which is why I like going for the unconventional to try and give me an edge.

[Pa3s]

I suck at chess. It's not that I'd play regularly or had a lot experience, but the few times I played were pretty disappointing. I'm not good at following a strategy, because my opponent typically doesn't do what I expect him to do. And I often miss critical details. One moment of carelessness might cost you an important piece and your game is ruined. It can be a very frustrating game for me.

[yellow82]

I don't know if any of this is type related, but here goes. . .

Chess has always been one of my favorite games, and a game I "hope" my future man will love and be proficient at! At least, I hope he's better at it then I am, and I'm not bad. . . I've won many a chess tournament.

My ISTj brother got me into chess when I was a little girl and I've always been into it since. He taught me all the best strategies etc. so you could say I've kind of learned to parrot his strategies. . . and he's a chess master.

I say, bring it on!

My other favorite board games to play are:
Boggle (which I've never met anyone that could beat me at the game. . . and I've played hundreds in my life time. . . so disappointing. )
Scattagories (almost as amazing as Boggle)
Bulderdash
Clue
Cranium
Egyptian Rat Slap
and Connect Four (another game my ISTj brother got me in to. . .)

My favorite outdoor games are:
volleyball
soccer
ultimate frisbee
and, fast ball

My favorite computer games are:
Age of Empires (something my ENFj and ISTj brothers were into)
The Sum of all Fears
Simcity
and, Crusader

But beware! I'm really competitive. . . I rarely let anyone beat me without a fight.

And yes, I grew up with four brothers. . . go figure.

[tcaudilllg]

In my experience, ISTxs are deadly at chess, if they take a strong interest in it.

[EyeSeeCold]

I always thought it was an / thing.

[ashlesha]

i've only played a few times and i always forget how. i've won most of the times i've played but idk why as i never use any strategy or anything, maybe the people i'm playing aren't that good or are letting me win hah. but the idea of chess as a game where you have to try to predict moves and plan out a strategy sounds like the opposite of "fun" to me personally. i don't enjoy that sort of stuff but its kind of impressive how some people do.

[717495]

I doubt its type related, maybe somewhat correlated. I know a variety of types in to chess who invest in strategizing. I used to be in to it, until I discovered real time risk.

[krieger]

i'm not into it much. my ENTj sister always seems more enthusiasmized by it.

[ClownsandEntropy]

I always thought it was an / thing.

According to what you've seen or what you'd imagine (given the nature of the functions)?

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I don't like chess. It feels evil. Evil-er than a british accent, evil. You know tv shows always had the bad dude playing chess and grinning menacingly, right? I agree with that. Anything that requires that much cunning can't be morally good!

lol. It just feels really autistic and too socially cut off or something.

[Bluenoir]

I miss playing chess, it was one of my favourite games at school. Now I have no one willing to play with me these days

[FDG]

boring

[Korpsy Knievel]

I miss playing chess, it was one of my favourite games at school. Now I have no one willing to play with me these days

Spend a few months in jail, you'll have plenty of time to hone your strategies against a wide range of opponents.

[Bluenoir]

Spend a few months in jail, you'll have plenty of time to hone your strategies against a wide range of opponents.

Will you be there to play?

[Korpsy Knievel]

Will you be there to play?

Only if I wind up fighting the cops again.

[Nowisthetime]

I know one SLI who's really good at chess. He's a natural, hasn't even played that much. He won over much more experienced players.

[Birdie]

I am quite good at chess until I lose interest. From that point forward I focus on strategically sacrificing my pieces and setting my king up so that my opponent will not notice. If you make your purposeful loss noticeable oftentimes the other party will ask for a "rematch" which is quite annoying when you were trying to stop playing in the first place.
Or you could just be direct and state that you no longer wish to play, you know. It is whatever. Lol.


*Edit-

For a moment I was apprehensive that my post was going to be the first on a new page and then I remembered that I changed the settings so the amount I see per page is different than the majority. Relief.

[Creepy-bg]

[1981slater]

I don't like Chess very much. I prefer Monopoly or Risk instead.

[Gilly]

Not a big chess fan, I usually give up mentally about half way through because it's just more than my brain can calculate at once without pissing me off; im much better at Go. I much prefer the strategy of establishing a territory and expanding out from it strategically and safely, with wild card moves thrown in for disorientation when threats start pressing down too heavily. When I try to do this in chess it usually involves some kind of flexible pawn/bishop pyramid, with the queen threatening as much space as possible at all times and rooks/knights doing most of the dirty work. I usually get destroyed by irrational types at chess because they will make one or two big sacrifices to destroy my castle (not the rooks; I refer to my strategy as a castle) and then I'm assfucked. In go, however, I'm good at quickly getting on top of my opponent using small traps in the early game, and never letting up; deviations from my core strategy are usually unnecessary because once I get on a roll/more than one move ahead, I just absolutely consume everything in my path.

[Gilly]

Yeah numbers was leet.

[discojoe]

I can crush you at chess if you are willing to put up with my ADD brain taking twice as long to make each move as the average person. I think logical types have an advantage here, in very general terms.

I miss being younger. There were times that I was able to hyper focus and have these moments of brilliance when playing against my ILE brother. I can't seem to reach that mental state anymore.

[Jarno]

I like backgammon.

I don't really know a lot about chess only that it is for gay dick sucking pussy faces.

[woofwoofl]

I am absolutely decent at chess

I don't have the attention span for it either, and as BulletsAndDoves said, it's too far removed from the human element for me to get into... when everything's right there stark and naked on the table, and everyone has exactly the same stuff at the beginning, it takes a lot of the mojo out of things... it's not like poker, or Scrabble, or any of those games that have both things hidden as well as things revealed, and strategy as well as luck-of-the-draw...

[Bardia]

I know how to play chess but I don't really play that well because I don't feel like memorizing play strategies or planning my moves 10 turns ahead. I like checkers a lot better.

[ArchonAlarion]

Chess is fun to play once in a while, but the game is too standardized and limited. I'd like a more complex board and the option to choose starting set-up of the pieces.

[Pa3s]

I'd like a more complex board and the option to choose starting set-up of the pieces.

[ArchonAlarion]

I have two sets of Feudal and created rules for custom armies and scenarios. So much fun.

[Gilly]

I like Go. Simple parameters, tactical rather than strategic. Very straightforward and much more openly psychological like poker. It feels much more orderly than chess, which seems stiflingly bureaucratic by comparison.

[Creepy-Snaps]

Chess at a professional/really good level is not, as that's just execution of ridiculous amounts of memorized openings, responses, mid game etc. (with the excuse of later game craaaaziness).

Proficiency is probably not related.

Not type related.

I love chess personally! Got to play it the other day at work actually, at the psychiatric hospital. Against one of the kids who was pretty good, who regularly beat the other kids and the other staff, said he'd been playing since age 7. Beat him haha.

I also learned chess when I was very little, playing against my dad, and then he got me an electronic board where I could play against the computer. Through my teen years, I played against people online a lot, and got the Chessmaster CD games for fun, and studied, played, and learned a lot from them.

Never did any formal competition, but I have always loved playing it.

Haven't tried Go before, like others mentioned. But I do love Monopoly a lot too. Risk is quite fun, but sometimes takes way too long, and involves way too much dice-rolling that it gets boring for me.

[Creepy-]

Chess is interesting. My main strategy is to maximize enemy casualties while minimizing my own. I wait until the last possible moment to sacrifice a piece, and even then only if I can gain a more important piece than the one I lost (importance based, of course, on the current board and the pieces there).

I rarely ever forecast moves ahead. Not consciously, at least. I can anticipate enemy movements, though, and I usually act based on that.

My strategy is very situational. I have never given time to study "real" chess strategy and I will probably never waste my time doing so. There has to be freedom of form- it is not interesting to me if the movements I make are just automatic reactions to stimulations, though the concept itself is interesting.

[DirectorAbbie]

Whereas I was more like you and I'd never bother to think beyond 2-3 steps in advance. If I try to plan any further than that, it just fizzles out into nonsense in my mind; my brain refuses to work like that for reason (I thought maybe I was just dumb or something). I'd also reactively alter tactics every turn, in response to whatever was happening. Which seemed to baffle him and he'd be like, "I can't tell what the hell are you doing… your strategy makes no sense to me." Which was kinda funny, because I didn't 'know' what the hell I was doing either and had no coherent strategy in mind. Yet more often than not I'd end up winning.

Neat. Maybe it's thinking.
I listened to a radio program where a brainy guy played chess against a farmer and lost because he couldn't figure out the farmer's strategy. He videotaped a game to study and said the only possible reason for moving a piece was to form the letter "M."

My main strategy is to maximize enemy casualties while minimizing my own.

Isn't that usually the point?

[Creepy-]

Isn't that usually the point?

Some people actively seek to create situations where one can exchange something lesser for something greater. This often involves the use of setting a trap or hiding one's true intentions, such as catching a Knight with a Bishop after the Knight catches a pawn.

The point of my post is that I don't do this, unless I am in dire straits. I never sacrifice pieces. This way of thinking actually prevails in other games as well. I am far more likely to advance slowly and take hold of strategic positions than rush the enemy with a giant army.

[discojoe]

Now that I think about it, the only ethical types I've known who seemed comfortable playing chess were Ni egos. Other ethical types, particularly ENFps, seem to hate it.

When I play, I constantly mumble inaudibly to myself at a rapid pace:

"Put that there but then he'll do this and then I can't do that so then I should move this one here yes that works and then I can do that but if he does this I'll do that instead so yeah that works should I do it 3 2 1 yes."

That technique keeps my mind active throughout the game, preventing me from sliding into ADD white noise coma.

[DirectorAbbie]

My SEI brother likes playing chess, but his favorite part is having the armies yell at each other.

I never sacrifice pieces.

Oh, okay. I do.

[Squishy]

This is the pawn setup I've used every game since I was like 10:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Cheater!! Black hasn't moved!

[Creepy-Snaps]

Not type related.

Bumping to clarify my opinion. Chess isn't very type-related at the professional levels. Masters have developed an outstanding interest and developed strategies executable by multiple types.

At the basic level though, and intermediate level, CHESS IS PRIMARILY Si . Most strategy/tactical games are mastered by sensors, as I explained in a post months ago. People falsely assume that intuition is related to strategy, the ability to think long-term, how things progress over time or able to make connections; but strategy is actually sensing, the ability to see how one thing leads to another, very directly.

Secondly, CHESS IS CORRELATED WITH LOGIC. Seems to be a stronger correlation with Te than Ti. The ability to externally organize forces to accomplish a specific purpose or goal, strongly relates to the organizational/planning of Te.

/thread answered.

I know one SLI who's really good at chess. He's a natural, hasn't even played that much. He won over much more experienced players.

BAM. Evidence. Strong Si.

If you look at most of the posts in this thread, it shows exactly what I explained. Most Si-egos are awesome at chess. An ESFp is good at it, but finds it boring (Si as ignoring, 7th function). Most Te-egos, ENTj, etc., are pretty good at it. And most NF's find it boring, uninteresting, or honestly admitted they weren't that good.

Chess is Si first, logic second.

I always thought it was an / thing.

You're half-right. It's Si. If it were also Ne, then you would see a greater representation of the NF's be interested in it, or be proficient at it. But you don't. So it's Si.

Again, these are just the GENERAL CORRELATIONS. As a disclaimer, I'm not saying all NFs are bad or uninterested in chess. There are outliers, of course.

But again, chess is primarily Si first, logic second.