That idea about SLE chess players being good at conquering territory etc. stems from Rick, and it is a totally ridiculous idea actually. He doesn't understand what he is talking about, because he doesn't understand the nature of chess.
dominants and
dominants have different playing styles in chess, and they are relatively better at different aspects of the game. For example LSIs don't understand the dynamics of a position very well, and in every LSI chess player we see a clear tendency to focus on the static features of a position. They are often perceived at good at strategy, but they don't play according to far-reaching and deep strategic plans. The LSI is much better at short-term "mini-operations" that are the result of the LSI beeing good at applying a very pragmatic and rational apprehension of the position at hand. They take what they get and try to make the best of it.
A typical example of an LSI chess player is the former World Champion Anatoly Karpov. Like all LSI chess players, Karpov has always had a very limited opening repertoire with a clearly sober, classical touch to it. Despite being a hard-working student, he has never shown any deep interested in chess theory. His memory is not very good, but he has an inborn sense of fear and is good at avoiding mistakes. Basically, his whole approach to chess is built on avoiding mistakes of his own and utilizing the mistakes of his opponents when they suffer from time-trouble and/or too elaborate strategic plans.
Whenever I meet an LSI at the chess board I know that I am worse at planning mini-operations, and I am a worse technician overall. I know that I am clearly superior in dynamic positions so I might try to steer the course of the battle into such positions. I am better at seeing tactical combinations, I am better at attacking the king, and I know more theory. I am worse at defending a slightly inferior position, because I have a tendency (just like Kasparov or Aljechin) to counter-attack instead of endure prolonged suffering in order to secure a draw.
I certainly don't rely on MBTT. You are fond of making lots of false statements, Ezra. That habit of yours is very irritating. It is like you want people to see you as very poor at intellectual reasoning.Originally Posted by Ezra



dominants and
dominants have different playing styles in chess, and they are relatively better at different aspects of the game. For example LSIs don't understand the dynamics of a position very well, and in every LSI chess player we see a clear tendency to focus on the static features of a position. They are often perceived at good at strategy, but they don't play according to far-reaching and deep strategic plans. The LSI is much better at short-term "mini-operations" that are the result of the LSI beeing good at applying a very pragmatic and rational apprehension of the position at hand. They take what they get and try to make the best of it.
Reply With Quote
