Further thoughts on forms of thought ...

Quote Originally Posted by Smilingeyes
He asserts that dynamics are better at tactics but in my experience this is not the case, I'd say dynamics are better at handling "the how, the technique, the means to an end".
He asserts that statics are better at strategy but again in my experience this is not the case. Again I'd rather say that statics are better at creating the "what, focusing on what they want to reach".
The concepts tactics and strategy are somewhat problematic and might mean different things in different contexts. But at least in chess, which is one of my special areas, what you say here about dynamics and statics coincide with how the words "tactics" and "strategy" should be understood and used to characterize what different types of chess players are good at. So, a possible interpretation might be that you and Gulenko actually agree on this.

But there are other problems. One such problem is the confusion that is now created about the relations between Statics/Dynamics and Tacticians/Strategists in respect to how good the types are at tactics and strategy in yours and/or Gulenko's sense. Here is the problem:

1. Tactical types are NPs and SJs, strategic types are NJs and SPs.
2. Statics are IJs and EPs, Dynamics are IPs and EJs.

How shall we understand this exactly?

I have noticed that in chess ENTjs tend to be good at strategy. They have no equals when it comes to preparations for a game, and they are good at calculating variations.

ISTjs are somewhat more problematic. Take Anatoly Karpov, for example. He is foremost a technician, and he also have a natural positional sense (more so than the ENTjs) that makes it possible for him to make decisions intuitively at the board. He is often said to be a supreme strategist, but that is not really the case. He performs "mini operations", planning the next step, but he often does not have an overall strategy to guide his actions. That was very clear in his early days, anyway. Karpovs tries to solve the problems as they arise, but his (early) playing style was lacking in strategic depth. However, he has never been particularly good at seeing tactical (in the sense combinatorial) solutions and he has never preferred them over positional solutions. To be a good positional player is not the same thing as being a good strategist, but it is rather common to confuse these concepts.

I am myself better at tactics than at strategy. I have a better sense for the dynamics in a position than every ISTj chess player I know of about the same playing strenghth. That's the main difference between us. We both have a highly developed positional sense, but the ISTjs tend to ignore, or not see, the dynamic aspects in a position as clearly as I do. They are usually better technicians, though. My worst area in chess is systematic planning of my operations far ahead, but I am good at seeing and judging chess strategies in a very general meta-perspective.

I would say that Garri Kasparov is a good example of a strategist and so is Alexander Alekhine -- two masters of attack that preferred tactical solutions over positional, but both of them planned their attacks in depth. Capablanca, on the other hand, was much more of a technician and an intuitive player of the same sort as Anatoly Karpov. A similar type of player is Viswanathan Anand -- a very good intuitive tactician and a good calculator (but not as good as Kasparov), but he definitely lacks the strategic depth of Kasparov. Like Capablanca and Karpov, Anand is much more of a pragmatist.

Bobby Fischer was a good tactician but much worse at strategy. He thought very concretely, calculating variations almost like a computer. He was also a supreme technician. Based on V.I. and some other things I have thought that he could be an INTj, but we might also interpret his aggressiveness (much more outside the chess board than on it) and other aspects of his behaviour as a sign of PoLR. Fischer was not very good in dynamic positions, always preferring the safe course over the more uncertain outcome, and in that respect he was similar to Karpov and Capablanca. All three of them shared a rational, objective attitude, and they were good at defense, not at all attacking furiously like Aljechin or Kasparov.