What is my Type?

[Mediator Kam]

Objectively good wine is a good thing, yes. That was what you meant, wasn't it?

Phaedrus man, I like you now.

[Nexus]

Would you agree that Popper would consider any theory that was unfalsifiable to be truly unscientific? This consistently happens every single day: When I first awake I am useless and disoriented, later I am unfocused but motivated, still later I become focused but unmotivated which lasts until I am too tired to stay awake. I am not familiar with the temperaments, but I consider myself to be introverted. As an afterthought...I have been playing a lot of chess lately, and although I sometimes stop to consider novel traps or strategic positions (), I usually click on the back button to follow the common tendencies and the logical progression of the opponent's thought (). I believe that my style of play is similar to what is known as 'process' (or 'dynamic', as opposed to 'result' or 'static') information metabolism, which is typical of INTps...while I tend to absorb the contextual significance and improvise, I suppose that might be involved in memorizing book openings (which I am hesitant to do for fear that I would compromise the originality of my own thought for specialized attention to the inherent qualities unique to chess) and that seek the opportunity to employ one of many pre-mediated attacks. However, this is only one example, and I could be wrong.

[Phaedrus]

Would you agree that Popper would consider any theory that was unfalsifiable to be truly unscientific?

Yes, but he would probably object to the word "truly". Popper didn't believe that there is a correct definition of what is meant by the word "scientific", and he always insisted on focusing on real problems instead of debating which word to use. Ultimately he would see it as a matter of choice between rationality and irrationality. It is more rational to prefer falsifiable theories over unfalsifiable -- if we are interested in making rational choices in the first place, and if we are interested in finding the objective truth.

This consistently happens every single day: When I first awake I am useless and disoriented, later I am unfocused but motivated, still later I become focused but unmotivated which lasts until I am too tired to stay awake. I am not familiar with the temperaments, but I consider myself to be introverted.

Then you are not likely an ENTj. Assuming that you are either INTj or INTp, which temperament description fits you better:

IJ – Introverted rational (balanced-stable temperament)

Energy Exchange. They always try to conserve energy and keep it for activities that are objecti­vely necessary. They are afraid of excess activity and non-productive exhaustion of their strength. These are the most energy-saving and sensible people. They look restrained and calm and they distance themselves from the meaningless things that happen around them. They are meticulous, and they dislike doing anything differently from the usual pattern. They are very static and inert, but also very steady and they always finish what they started. They can not adapt in rapidly chang­ing and extreme situations. They quickly lose their working capacity and they get ill very often.

Emotions and behavior. At first glance, they seem to have no emotions at all because they are just so good at controlling their emotions. Actually they are just waiting for the right moment to let the emotions out to the right people. They can hold on to emotions for a very long time, which is what makes them the most likely to have accumulated stress. This means that they can get stress because they have been gathering emotions, but haven’t been expressing them. They might have random emotional outbursts. The rage of an IJ type is very scary, because he can collect insults for months or even for years. Their behavior is very consistent and predictable. Their actions don’t de­pend on the changes in the environment, they have their own rigid firm moral and practical norms. When there are conflicts between their norms and the reality, they get nervous and they start bott­ling up bad emotions. They need activities that amuse/entertain them and give them emotional and physical relaxation.


IP – Introverted irrational (perception-adapting temperament)

Energy exchange. Energy level is very unstable. They react to discomfort very strongly, which is why they use their energy to avoid unacceptable conditions or to create comfort. On their rare mo­ments of activity, they become similar to the representatives of the EP temperament, but on their moments of inactivity, they seem similar to the representatives of the IJ temperament. They tend to hide from the world and cope with their perso­nal resources, which are bigger than they might seem to others. They are not able to constantly manage with energy exchange rhythm. Their work­ing capacity is smaller than it is for the other temperaments. They only work effectively when they are perceiving the need for it or when there are important circumstances which they can’t ignore. There is no point in pushing those people, because they will seemingly agree with the aggressor, but will find ways to evade their duties. They either can’t or won’t overwork and they don’t share other people’s enthusiasm in principle.

Emotions and behavior. Highly sensitive to the emotions of others. They can’t stand unstable moods or stormy emotions, which is why they avoid conflict and they try to solve misunderstan­dings. They don’t try to change the situation, they adapt to it by showing extraordinary ingenuity and flexibility. In relaxing, comfortable and safe situations they bloom, become good and social people. They try to be good towards their sur­roundings and act in a kind and caring way. They are pleasant and easygoing people in close relations and cold and distant towards all others. It’s neces­sary to treat them in a caring and attentive way to preserve their vulnerable emotionality and fra­gile nervous system.


Smilingeyes's (good) comments:

The IJ emotion description doesn't seem to be very good. I don't see anything in it that doesn't apply to IPs as well. To me it seems that the following is true, but I'd love to get feed-back on this...

The IJ is better able to control his feelings, the outside events have less of an impact on him and he is able to directly effect what goes on in his head, concentrate on what he perceives to be im­portant and ignore everything else. This self-limiting of his informational input means that when something occurs, that might be upsetting to others, it's quite possible that the IJ doesn't even register it happened. He wards the events completely from his world. But sometimes something has a direct effect to those factors that the IJ has chosen to be important and this can not be ig­nored. Things that affect these select few things, will get an enormous reaction unlike anything others are capable of creating.

The IP on the other hand does not control his feelings as much as his reaction to them. When something emotionally upsetting happens, the IP does not ward it away like the IJ, he notices it, and he soaks it, like a sponge. He acts as if there was no amount of weight that he was unable to bear and he will continue through any adversity. Yet sometimes his self-control slips, either be­cause he's been surprised or he's tired or drunk or whatever and then he starts leaking pathos. He generally actively controls the amount of stress he gets to avoid crossing this border.

Yet the previous was based on thinking style IJs and IPs respectively and I expect needs revision for the feelers.

The IP seems to care about everything related to the task he is interested in. He is engrossed like as if he were a part of the task himself. This is when he likes what he is doing.

The IJ on the other hand doesn't seem to care, or allow himself to care about the "frivolous" parts of a task. He cares only about "the important parts" of the task. Yet over those he needs greater control than the IP. He is not absorbed by the task but rather he is single-minded in his pursuit of the task. While the IP "is one with the task" to the IJ the important things seem to appear as an abstraction, a simplification, rather than as the thing an sich. This capability gives the IJ greater command over his understanding of the matter.

As an afterthought...I have been playing a lot of chess lately, and although I sometimes stop to consider novel traps or strategic positions (), I usually click on the back button to follow the common tendencies and the logical progression of the opponent's thought (). I believe that my style of play is similar to what is known as 'process' (or 'dynamic', as opposed to 'result' or 'static') information metabolism, which is typical of INTps...while I tend to absorb the contextual significance and improvise, I suppose that might be involved in memorizing book openings (which I am hesitant to do for fear that I would compromise the originality of my own thought for specialized attention to the inherent qualities unique to chess) and that seek the opportunity to employ one of many pre-mediated attacks. However, this is only one example, and I could be wrong.

This is a new, very interesting, and potentially fruitful angle on the problem. I have been playing chess myself for more than a quarter of a century, and I have thought a lot about different playing styles, the types of famous players, and the difference between Dynamics and Statics in relation to chess.

We could compare our playing styles and our attitudes towards chess in general. As a start, what famous players have influenced your style of play? What are your favourite openings and why? Do you think that your playing style resembles the style of some player(s)?

[Creepy-Cyclops]

If there are arguments for Te and Ti, I think I am F.

[JuJu]

If there are arguments for Te and Ti, I think I am F.

lol!!!

[Nexus]

Then you are not likely an ENTj. Assuming that you are either INTj or INTp, which temperament description fits you better:

IJ – Introverted rational (balanced-stable temperament)
Energy Exchange. They always try to conserve energy and keep it for activities that are objecti*vely necessary. They are afraid of excess activity and non-productive exhaustion of their strength. These are the most energy-saving and sensible people. They look restrained and calm and they distance themselves from the meaningless things that happen around them. They are meticulous, and they dislike doing anything differently from the usual pattern. They are very static and inert, but also very steady and they always finish what they started. They can not adapt in rapidly chang*ing and extreme situations. They quickly lose their working capacity and they get ill very often.
Emotions and behavior. At first glance, they seem to have no emotions at all because they are just so good at controlling their emotions. Actually they are just waiting for the right moment to let the emotions out to the right people. They can hold on to emotions for a very long time, which is what makes them the most likely to have accumulated stress. This means that they can get stress because they have been gathering emotions, but haven’t been expressing them. They might have random emotional outbursts. The rage of an IJ type is very scary, because he can collect insults for months or even for years. Their behavior is very consistent and predictable. Their actions don’t de*pend on the changes in the environment, they have their own rigid firm moral and practical norms. When there are conflicts between their norms and the reality, they get nervous and they start bott*ling up bad emotions. They need activities that amuse/entertain them and give them emotional and physical relaxation.

IP – Introverted irrational (perception-adapting temperament)
Energy exchange. Energy level is very unstable. They react to discomfort very strongly, which is why they use their energy to avoid unacceptable conditions or to create comfort. On their rare mo*ments of activity, they become similar to the representatives of the EP temperament, but on their moments of inactivity, they seem similar to the representatives of the IJ temperament. They tend to hide from the world and cope with their perso*nal resources, which are bigger than they might seem to others. They are not able to constantly manage with energy exchange rhythm. Their work*ing capacity is smaller than it is for the other temperaments. They only work effectively when they are perceiving the need for it or when there are important circumstances which they can’t ignore. There is no point in pushing those people, because they will seemingly agree with the aggressor, but will find ways to evade their duties. They either can’t or won’t overwork and they don’t share other people’s enthusiasm in principle.
Emotions and behavior. Highly sensitive to the emotions of others. They can’t stand unstable moods or stormy emotions, which is why they avoid conflict and they try to solve misunderstan*dings. They don’t try to change the situation, they adapt to it by showing extraordinary ingenuity and flexibility. In relaxing, comfortable and safe situations they bloom, become good and social people. They try to be good towards their sur*roundings and act in a kind and caring way. They are pleasant and easygoing people in close relations and cold and distant towards all others. It’s neces*sary to treat them in a caring and attentive way to preserve their vulnerable emotionality and fra*gile nervous system.

Smilingeyes's (good) comments:
'The IJ emotion description doesn't seem to be very good. I don't see anything in it that doesn't apply to IPs as well. To me it seems that the following is true, but I'd love to get feed-back on this... The IJ is better able to control his feelings, the outside events have less of an impact on him and he is able to directly effect what goes on in his head, concentrate on what he perceives to be im*portant and ignore everything else. This self-limiting of his informational input means that when something occurs, that might be upsetting to others, it's quite possible that the IJ doesn't even register it happened. He wards the events completely from his world. But sometimes something has a direct effect to those factors that the IJ has chosen to be important and this can not be ig*nored. Things that affect these select few things, will get an enormous reaction unlike anything others are capable of creating. The IP on the other hand does not control his feelings as much as his reaction to them. When something emotionally upsetting happens, the IP does not ward it away like the IJ, he notices it, and he soaks it, like a sponge. He acts as if there was no amount of weight that he was unable to bear and he will continue through any adversity. Yet sometimes his self-control slips, either be*cause he's been surprised or he's tired or drunk or whatever and then he starts leaking pathos. He generally actively controls the amount of stress he gets to avoid crossing this border. Yet the previous was based on thinking style IJs and IPs respectively and I expect needs revision for the feelers. The IP seems to care about everything related to the task he is interested in. He is engrossed like as if he were a part of the task himself. This is when he likes what he is doing. The IJ on the other hand doesn't seem to care, or allow himself to care about the "frivolous" parts of a task. He cares only about "the important parts" of the task. Yet over those he needs greater control than the IP. He is not absorbed by the task but rather he is single-minded in his pursuit of the task. While the IP "is one with the task" to the IJ the important things seem to appear as an abstraction, a simplification, rather than as the thing an sich. This capability gives the IJ greater command over his understanding of the matter.'

This is a new, very interesting, and potentially fruitful angle on the problem. I have been playing chess myself for more than a quarter of a century, and I have thought a lot about different playing styles, the types of famous players, and the difference between Dynamics and Statics in relation to chess. We could compare our playing styles and our attitudes towards chess in general. As a start, what famous players have influenced your style of play? What are your favourite openings and why? Do you think that your playing style resembles the style of some player(s)?

Thank you, that was very revealing: I am IJ temperament. I like working for hours on end and I like to abstract whatever I deem is important (like Mary Poppins). I also conserve energy, whether during aerobic exercise, playing very fast guitar, or in general, and I am also meticulous, predictable, and emotionless. I can quickly adapt to situations, but at a cost that is usually not worth the effort with respect to whatever I have been doing. I also have my own standards of morality and I am not ashamed to impose them (after all, what is ethics but the study of implicit social contracts? I am usually indifferent to the ways that others feel, but I was expecting this of INTps due to Fe PoLR though that is the opposite of what you have asserted in your descriptions). I will not have an outburst unless to facilitate the extinction of a behavior in which I have subconsciously become so obstinate that I cannot otherwise adjust to comparatively simple circumstances and am acting in a manner that is 'reductio ad absurdum'. I am not unstable and I do not have mood swings (the IP temperament reminds me of enneagram 5w4 and I am 5w6), and comfort is something I seek as an afterthought. However, perhaps the greatest indicator is that I am very, very stubborn, perhaps more than anything else, and I am not likely to budge on anything I have decided to endorse unless I am reasonably persuaded. I see the IP reaction as inherently inconsistent and prone to shifting, which I am not likely to do. As for chess, I tend to prefer closed games because they are usually more decisive and are easier to follow. I am not very fluent in chess terminology, but I tend to adhere to the Soviet school (Mikhail Ivanovich Chigorin). My favorite openings involve knights (like the Spanish 'Queen's Gambit', see image below), because the range of the knight is uninhibited by adjacent pieces and the locomotion of the knight allows it to administer comparatively unforeseen attacks (like forks). Bishops are also useful for supporting roles because they can control positions at the front from far away (hypermodernism). I try not to involve the queen at the beginning to conserve her influence for the middle and end game. I also like speed chess (two minutes on the clock). I am not sure who I resemble in style, but here is a game that I played today in case you want to analyze it (I was white):

1. d4 d5
2. Nc3 e6
3. Nf3 Nf6
4. Bg5 c5
5. Bxf6 Qxf6
6. dxc5 Bxc5
7. e4 e5
8. Nxd5 Qc6
9. Nxe5 Qb6
10. Nxb6 Bxb6
11. Bb5+ Ke7
12. Bc4 f6
13. Nf7 Rg8
14. O-O Rf8
15. Re1 Nc6
16. e5 f5
17. Ng5 Rd8
18. Qh5 Rf8
19. Qxh7 Nb4
20. Red1 Bd7
21. Qxg7+ Ke8
22. Bf7+ Ke7
23. Be6+ Kd8
24. Qxd7 (mate)

Spanish Opening (Ruy Lopez):

[Phaedrus]

Thank you, that was very revealing: I am IJ temperament. [...]

Okay, you identify with IJ temperament, and you test as IJ temperament. I identify with IP temperament, and I test as IP temperament.

I also have my own standards of morality and I am not ashamed to impose them (after all, what is ethics bu the study of implicit social contracts? I am usually indifferent to the ways that others feel, but I was expecting this of INTps due to Fe PoLR though that is the opposite of what you have asserted in your descriptions).

Both INTjs and INTps are relatively indifferent to what others feel. Fe PoLR is about not valuing Fe and not being aware of its importance in social situations.

I am not unstable and I do not have mood swings (the IP temperament reminds me of enneagram 5w4 and I am 5w6), and comfort is something I seek as an afterthought.

I have some mood swings, and especially my working capacity fluctuates and fits what is described in the IP temperament. And I am a 5w4.

However, perhaps the greatest indicator is that I am very, very stubborn, perhaps more than anything else, and I am not likely to bunge on anything I have decided to endorse unless I am reasonably persuaded. I see the IP reaction as inherently inconsistent and prone to shifting, which I am not likely to do.

You describe the "strong will" that is attributed to INTJs in MBTT and Keirsey. And you express the typical attitude of rationals that do not like to change course. I suppose you have read SG's article about it: http://www.socionics.com/articles/irra.htm

As for chess, I tend to prefer closed games because they are usually more decisive and are easier to follow.

I'm not sure what you mean by "decisive" and "easier to follow here". Why can't open games be that too?

I am not very fluent in chess terminology, but I tend to adhere to the Soviet school (Mikhail Ivanovich Chigorin).

The Soviet school in chess is characterized by its aggressiveness in that it favours the initiative over long-term, structural considerations. It is empiricist in its consistent search for new paths, new opening schemes/moves, and it is hypermodern/non-classical in its insistence on judging every position on its on merits instead of according to general principles. A good representative is Mikhail Botvinnik who was a Tj type for sure.

My favorite openings involve knights (like the Spanish 'Queen's Gambit', see image below), because the range of the knight is unhibited by adjacent pieces and the locomotion of the knight allows it to administer comparatively unforeseen attacks (like forks).

Do you prefer knights over bishops (which is often said about Chigorin, even though that is somewhat misleading in his case)? Playing through your game is actually very interesting, because (even though the information provided by only a single game is of course limited) you seem to play in a style that is not at all different from the style of an INTj chess player and friend of mine. It's somewhat hard to tell for sure, because it could be a tendency that is common to many others as well (especially beginners), but you both seem to trade your bishop for the opponent's knight unprovoked (5.Bxf6).

One possible interpretation of that is that it is consistent with the attitude of the Soviet school in general and Chigorin's attitude in particular in being skeptical of general principles (a bishop is overall, in most situations, a slightly more valuable piece than a knight). We can contrast it with the attitudes of a typical representatives of the Classical school of chess (emanating from Paul Morphy and formulated by Steinitz) like José Capablanca and Bobby Fischer, who both had a clear preference for the bishop.

Bishops are also useful for supporting roles because they can control positions at the front from far away (hypermodernism).

Yes. What is your attitude towards Nimzowitsch and the ideas of hypermodernism in general? Both Nimzowitsch and Chigorin can be seen as experts on the blockade as a strategical weapon. They were both some sort of Romantics in the sense that they were non-classicists, but even though Chigorin played openings like the Evan's Gambit and the like as white, he and Nimzowitsch were foremost two of the greatest defensive players in the history of chess.

I am not sure who I resemble in style, but here is a game that I played today in case you want to analyze it (I was white):

1.d4
White starts with the move that is considered the best according to Hans Berliner and others. If we compare the two main opening moves 1.e4 and 1.d4, White's primary focus when he opens with 1.e4 is on fast development of the pieces and an early clash of forces. By playing the King's Pawn forward White puts immediate pressure on Black and forces him to early pin-point decisions that can devastating consequences. The play after 1.e4 is generally more concrete and tactical in nature than after 1.d4, and in order to play it successfully you have to know a lot of theory and forced variations by heart. One mistake can be fatal.

By playing 1.d4 White reveals that he is probably more interested in terrain than development. The play after 1.d4 is usually somewhat slower and more positional in nature than after 1.e4, and the importance of planning and long-term strategy increases.

1...d5
The classical response. Black prevents White from playing 2.e4 (which would give him two pawns in the center and free development for the pieces) and puts one of his own pawns on one of the four central squares. The main alternative, 1...Nf6, often leads to one of the hypermodern Indian defences.

2.Nc3!?
Perhaps influenced by his founding father, Mikhail Chigorin, White immediately deviates from the classical principle that recommends that you should not put your knight in front of your c-pawn in closed openings, because the most logical follow-up is to put pressure on the opponent's center by playing c2-c4 (or c7-c7) if possible, and instead chooses a move that often leads to the Veresov Opening after 2...Nf6 3.Bg5. The idea is similar to that in Chigorin's Defence (1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6).

2...e6
Somewhat passive. Perhaps Black is afraid of the Veresov and prefers to invite a transposition to the French Defence, which we would have if White now plays 3.e4.

3.Nf3
But White is not accomodating. Instead he chooses a natural development move and keeps his options open.

3...Nf6 4.Bg5
Natural moves by both players.

4...c5!?
A sharp response. Black attacks White's center according to classical principles and is not afraid of the complications that could arise after 5.e4!? Safer alternatives are 4...Be7 and 4...Nbd7.

5.Bxf6+?!
Premature in my opinion. Why release the tension and give up the bishop pair when no concrete is gain is in sight? 5.e4 would have put Black to a tougher test. A sound and logical alternative was also 5.e3.

5...Qxf6
The most natural recapture. 6.Nb5 can now be answered calmly by 6...Qd8 and White hasn't achieved much.

6.dxc5
White continues with his unorthodox strategy. It looks like he is only helping Black to develop his pieces, but White has a concrete idea in mind.

6...Bxc5 7.e4!?
Very aggressive. Now Black's center is under attack, but what would happen if Black now simply takes the pawn on e4? After 7...dxe4 8.Nxe4 Black can take another pawn with 8...Qxb2, because 9.Nxc5 is answered by 9...Qc3+ 10.Nd2 (10.Qd2? Qxa1+) 10...Qxc5 after which White has insufficient compensation for a pawn. And 9.Rb1 can be answered by 9...Bb4+, which also does not look very appealing to White.

White's best chance is probably to play 8.Bb5+ before recapturing on e4. After for example 8...Nc6 9.Nxe4 Qxb2 White can choose between 10.Bxc6+ (10.Nxc5 Qxb5) 10...bxc6 11.0-0 with some compensation, or the seemingly more promising 11.Rb1 which can turn out to quite dangerous for Black after 11...Qa3 (or 11...Bb4+ 12.Kf1 Qa3 13.Rb3 Qa5 [not 13...Qxa2? 14.Rxb4] 12.Rb3 Qa5+ 13.Kf1 followed by 14.Nd6+ and Black is at least temporarily unable to castle into safety.

7...e5??
A very bad, and in fact losing, move. If Black does not want to risk the complications after 7...dxe4, he could have chosen 7...d4, which doesn't look too bad for him, or even consider gambiting a pawn himself for development by 7...0-0!?, after which it risky for White to cling on to material by capturing twice on d5. But if White doesn't take the pawn, his opening strategy has been at least a minor failure, and Black would stand at least slightly better.

8.Nxd5
Of course. White now has a huge advantage. He is simply a good pawn up.

8...Qc6??
One big mistake followed by an even bigger one. Black had to play 8...Qd8 if he wanted to play on, but since the position is lost anyway he could also consider resigning.

9.Nxe5?
White is of course still winning after this move, but a much better move is 9.Bb5!, after which Black loses his queen. The queen can't move back because of the pin, and 9...Qxb5 would let White's knight fork Black's king and queen with 10.Nc7+.

9...Qb6??
The only move was 9...Qd6. The game is now practically over.

10.Nxb6 Bxb6 11.Bb5+ Ke7 12.Bc4 f6 13.Nf7 Rg8?!
A strange move in a totally lost position.

14.O-O Rf8 15.Re1 Nc6 16.e5 f5 17.Ng5?!
More effective would have been to check on d6 with the queen.

17...Rd8 18.Qh5 Rf8 19.Qxh7 Nb4 20.Red1
There is of course nothing wrong with 20.Qxg7+ either.

20...Bd7 21.Qxg7+ Ke8 22.Bf7+?
Better is 22.Qxd7 mate.

22...Ke7 23.Be6+ Kd8 24.Qxd7 (mate)

[Nexus]

Thank you for the article, it was very informative. I tend to deal with things directly, but I am also able to abandon my habits and adjust (I am only 66% J in MBTI, the other 33% is P); this is a temporary state of mind in which I am not really aware of what I am doing (autopilot mode) and cannot last long because I will lose interest in accommodating what appears to me to be an obstacle. On the whole I believe that a consideration of IJ temperament might be the determining factor of my type...Expat says that there is a chance that I might be also a sensor (LSI) - do you think that I show signs of being ISTj? I cannot say whether I value or , but when I lie I find it easier to manipulate people by sympathizing with their motives instead of regulating my behavior to avoid signaling deceit (which is a dead giveaway).

I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis. I see that you favor putting pressure on the center with as many pieces as possible...while I enjoy this, unless it is relevant to my plans for mate it really only tests my ability to keep track of the standoff's outcome and not the rest of the game. You are correct that my hopeful move 7 - NxE4 was executed in haste, I had failed to see the queen's potential fork at 9 - QC3+ however I fail to realize the merit of your suggestion 9 - bB5 as it is an unprotected pin which the queen could have ended herself; I am also baffled at my opponent's neglect of 9 - QD6, it would not have prevented the fork at NC7+ but a developed queen is still better than a locked-in rook - I think that after the loss of his queen he simply lost interest, I was so stunned myself that I discontinued my attack and struggled to get my rook out before the advantage was lost (14 - O-O and 15 - RE1), and then started worrying about my last knight though I could not save it (17 - NG5 and 19 - QxH7) as I treasure my knights (sometimes more than rooks or even queens)...either way, this was a rapidly-unfolding timed game and I played it rather inattentively; there is a better open match below, where my attack is precisely formulated and not prone to hesitant halts and reluctant reassessments (I think). I agree that I like to take an aggressive initiative insofar as I am not responding to an enemy operation so that I can keep my opponent on the run. I also like to explore new possibilities and forge my own style (like free jazz improvisation) rather than stick to unyielding algorithmic principles, and so adapt to my opponent all the while. I also judge every position on it's own merit, which is perhaps where I am prone to shortcomings with respect to the classical foundations of chess, and I will trade pieces of equal value if I am not losing and the opponent doesn't strategically gain more than I do; sometimes this is a good way to energize a game in which the most advantageous direction is not immediately conspicuous. I certainly prefer knights over bishops, but not by much, which is why I will often trade my bishops for the other's knights (ultimately this leaves much less for me to calculate and makes every mounted attack much more conspicuous). I am well aware that bishops are considered more valuable in classical chess for their long range, but they are also limited to one square color, which makes them useless (to me) except for supporting roles (hence I differ from Nimzowitsch, who would advocate a more direct role for bishops, like Fianchetto; I think that blockades are wasteful and overprotective unless they are immediately necessary as prophylactics [chess prophylaxis not condoms] or have wide-ranging consequences, and I prefer directly attacking key pieces or even Zwischenzug to further direct development, rather than promoting conditions for a stalemate). Do you know Fischer and Capablanca's reasoning for their preference of the bishop? I know that Steinitz was Chigorin's ideological opponent for expanding the classical influence, and actually beat him in two tournaments though not by much. By decisive, I mean that the possibilities for material gain in a closed game are limited by direct support from queen, so that any action will have certain and directly foreseeable consequences and less possibilities are available, but I do not adhere to closed games (especially when I play as black). Here is a King's Pawn game that I played today (this time I played as black) which was much more focused on tactical offense than strategic defense and showed my typical preference for Chigorin tactics and multiple mutually reinforcing combinations of successive knight attacks in a more consistent and deliberate manner. My opponent resigned shortly after two minutes had passed, once my victory became inevitable (I felt cheated in this respect; as you may have noticed my endgame needs work, I missed mate 22 - QxD7 in the last game and had to wait until 24 - QxD7). This win wasn't so much due to an obvious error on the part of my opponent as much as their self-absorbed maneuvering and the speed and liquifiability of my assault (BTW, I haven't played many rated games so I am about average at '1200'; unfortunately, as a rational temperament I often play until I am very tired and only stop when I consistently begin to make mistakes, so my ratings suffer).

1. e4 e5
2. Be2 Nf6
3. f3 d5
4. exd5 Nxd5
5. g3 Nc6
6. f4 Ndb4
7. Nf3 Bf5
8. d3 e4
9. O-O exf3
10. Rxf3 Bc5+
11. Kf1 Nd4
12. Be3 Nbxc2
13. Nc3 Nxa1
14. Qxa1 Nxf3
15. Bxf3 Bxe3
16. Qe1 Qxd3+
17. Be2 Qd2
18. white resigns

[kensi]

If thes?e .....are arguments for Te and Ti, I think I am F.

haha likewise(if i ubderstand correctly)....i agree....now i see why i wanna be an F overall....i think that the kinds of logic that an ISTp possesses, from personal experience, differs greatly from that of 2 hypothetical INTxs fighting over it....as you can relatively see in your own involvement or lack there of in this matter. The ISTps sense of logic is greatly and primarily tied into an Si realm and not so much the Nx realm.

[Elro]

1...d5
The classical response. Black prevents White from playing 2.e4 (which would give him two pawns in the center and free development for the pieces) and puts one of his own pawns on one of the four central squares. The main alternative, 1...Nf6, often leads to one of the hypermodern Indian defences.

2.Nc3!?
Perhaps influenced by his founding father, Mikhail Chigorin, White immediately deviates from the classical principle that recommends that you should not put your knight in front of your c-pawn in closed openings, because the most logical follow-up is to put pressure on the opponent's center by playing c2-c4 (or c7-c7) if possible, and instead chooses a move that often leads to the Veresov Opening after 2...Nf6 3.Bg5. The idea is similar to that in Chigorin's Defence (1.d4 d5 2.c4 Nc6).

2...e6
Somewhat passive. Perhaps Black is afraid of the Veresov and prefers to invite a transposition to the French Defence, which we would have if White now plays 3.e4.

3.Nf3
But White is not accomodating. Instead he chooses a natural development move and keeps his options open.

3...Nf6 4.Bg5
Natural moves by both players.

4...c5!?
A sharp response. Black attacks White's center according to classical principles and is not afraid of the complications that could arise after 5.e4!? Safer alternatives are 4...Be7 and 4...Nbd7.

5.Bxf6+?!
Premature in my opinion. Why release the tension and give up the bishop pair when no concrete is gain is in sight? 5.e4 would have put Black to a tougher test. A sound and logical alternative was also 5.e3.

5...Qxf6
The most natural recapture. 6.Nb5 can now be answered calmly by 6...Qd8 and White hasn't achieved much.

6.dxc5
White continues with his unorthodox strategy. It looks like he is only helping Black to develop his pieces, but White has a concrete idea in mind.

6...Bxc5 7.e4!?
Very aggressive. Now Black's center is under attack, but what would happen if Black now simply takes the pawn on e4? After 7...dxe4 8.Nxe4 Black can take another pawn with 8...Qxb2, because 9.Nxc5 is answered by 9...Qc3+ 10.Nd2 (10.Qd2? Qxa1+) 10...Qxc5 after which White has insufficient compensation for a pawn. And 9.Rb1 can be answered by 9...Bb4+, which also does not look very appealing to White.

White's best chance is probably to play 8.Bb5+ before recapturing on e4. After for example 8...Nc6 9.Nxe4 Qxb2 White can choose between 10.Bxc6+ (10.Nxc5 Qxb5) 10...bxc6 11.0-0 with some compensation, or the seemingly more promising 11.Rb1 which can turn out to quite dangerous for Black after 11...Qa3 (or 11...Bb4+ 12.Kf1 Qa3 13.Rb3 Qa5 [not 13...Qxa2? 14.Rxb4] 12.Rb3 Qa5+ 13.Kf1 followed by 14.Nd6+ and Black is at least temporarily unable to castle into safety.

7...e5??
A very bad, and in fact losing, move. If Black does not want to risk the complications after 7...dxe4, he could have chosen 7...d4, which doesn't look too bad for him, or even consider gambiting a pawn himself for development by 7...0-0!?, after which it risky for White to cling on to material by capturing twice on d5. But if White doesn't take the pawn, his opening strategy has been at least a minor failure, and Black would stand at least slightly better.

8.Nxd5
Of course. White now has a huge advantage. He is simply a good pawn up.

8...Qc6??
One big mistake followed by an even bigger one. Black had to play 8...Qd8 if he wanted to play on, but since the position is lost anyway he could also consider resigning.

9.Nxe5?
White is of course still winning after this move, but a much better move is 9.Bb5!, after which Black loses his queen. The queen can't move back because of the pin, and 9...Qxb5 would let White's knight fork Black's king and queen with 10.Nc7+.

9...Qb6??
The only move was 9...Qd6. The game is now practically over.

10.Nxb6 Bxb6 11.Bb5+ Ke7 12.Bc4 f6 13.Nf7 Rg8?!
A strange move in a totally lost position.

14.O-O Rf8 15.Re1 Nc6 16.e5 f5 17.Ng5?!
More effective would have been to check on d6 with the queen.

17...Rd8 18.Qh5 Rf8 19.Qxh7 Nb4 20.Red1
There is of course nothing wrong with 20.Qxg7+ either.

20...Bd7 21.Qxg7+ Ke8 22.Bf7+?
Better is 22.Qxd7 mate.

22...Ke7 23.Be6+ Kd8 24.Qxd7 (mate)

Typological conclusions, o wise chess analyst?

[kensi]

IJ – Introverted rational (balanced-stable temperament)

Energy Exchange. They always try to conserve energy and keep it for activities that are objecti­vely necessary. They are afraid of excess activity and non-productive exhaustion of their strength. These are the most energy-saving and sensible people. They look restrained and calm and they distance themselves from the meaningless things that happen around them. They are meticulous, and they dislike doing anything differently from the usual pattern.

This seems to very well describe my dealings with RSV3 who is probably an INTj.


I don't think though that it fits in very well with HUIT.... as i've noticed, especially when he joined the other forum at socionics, that he is quite capable of going on an onslaught.....with multiple posts that serve rather pragmatic external closure rather than an investigation of internal structure. If Huit(Intxwurm, Shadowpuppet) is an INTp he would then have an ID (7+8th functions) similar to that of the ENTp if well developed, as it probably is, thus seeming maybe not to be INTp but is nevertheless.

I'm so surprised that nobody talks about the relationship between function 1 and 7 as 7 sometimes may seem more powerfull than 1.

This interpretation may also explain why i have had some notice of an INFp (my ID) nature in me while overall i am presumably ENFp (my Ego).

What is the relationship between the Ego and Personal knowledge? Both are capable of running the show as both are Strong...i've even heard of some references that suggest that the ID is stronger in some people. To some extent it makes sense but leads to .

[Nexus]

Typological conclusions, o wise chess analyst?

He says that always favoring knights over bishops is the type of unorthodoxy that is characteristic of LII.

[Phaedrus]

On the whole I believe that a consideration of IJ temperament might be the determining factor of my type...Expat says that there is a chance that I might be also a sensor (LSI) - do you think that I show signs of being ISTj?

No, none at all. I think that it is out of the question that you are an ISTj. One reason for that claim is that it is almost impossible for an ISTj to be interested in philosophy and other theoretical pursuits in the way that you are. ISTjs are always very practically minded. Besides, you don't look like an ISTj.

I cannot say whether I value or , but when I lie I find it easier to manipulate people by sympathizing with their motives instead of regulating my behavior to avoid signaling deceit (which is a dead giveaway).

I am myself not a good liar, and I would only consider lying in extreme situations. Practically speaking, I never find any reason to lie, so I don't do it. I don't always feel a strong need to tell the truth, but I don't say things that I don't believe to be true. Unless I'm joking.

I thoroughly enjoyed your analysis. I see that you favor putting pressure on the center with as many pieces as possible...while I enjoy this, unless it is relevant to my plans for mate it really only tests my ability to keep track of the standoff's outcome and not the rest of the game.

When I analyze games of chess I try to be as objective as possible in my analyses, so what I favour personally can't be that easily determined based on my comments. I tried to indicate the objectively best moves, but I didn't spend much time analyzing, so I might have missed something.

You are correct that my hopeful move 7 - NxE4 was executed in haste, I had failed to see the queen's potential fork at 9 - QC3+ however I fail to realize the merit of your suggestion 9 - bB5 as it is an unprotected pin which the queen could have ended herself;

Sorry, I should have given a few variations after 9...Bb4+. White has six legal moves after Black's check:

A) 10.Nc3?? Bxc3+ and Black wins.

B) 10.Qd2?? Bxd2+ and Black wins.

C) 10.c3 Bxc3+ 11.Ned2 (or 11.Nfd2) 11...Bxd2+ 12.Nxd2 Qe5+ 13.Be2 0-0, and although White has a slight lead in development after 14.0-0 Black is two sound pawns up and stands better.

D) 10.Ned2 Bxd2+ 11.Nxd2 (not 11.Qxd2?? Qxb1+, and if 11.Kxd2 simply 11...Qxa2 looks sufficient) and now the safest route for Black is probably 11...Qe5+ 12.Be2 0-0 with the same postion as in C, except that White has a pawn on c2. However, the pawn on c2 is weak and is in the way for White's pieces, and Black is still a good pawn up, so White's compensation is hardly sufficient. Black stands better here too. If he is more ambitious he could also consider taking a second pawn on a2 instead of checking on e5.

E) 10.Nfd2 Bxd2+ 11.Nxd2 transposes to D.

F) 10.Ke2!? is actually not quite as bad as it looks, but after 10...Qa3 it is not easy to find a good continuation for White. If Black is allowed to castle he would stand much better, so White must act quickly. The radical idea to sacrifice the exchange on b4 in order to get a knight check on d6 is insufficient: 11.Rxb4 Qxb4 12.Nd6+ Ke7 and Black should win. White could try instead 11.Rb3 Qa5 12.Nd6+ Bxd6 13.Qxd6 to prevent Black from castling, but in that position Black has 13...Qa6+ and after the inevitable exchange of queens Black should win the ending.

The overall conclusion is that Black seems to get the advantage in all variations after 9...Bb4+.

I am also baffled at my opponent's neglect of 9 - QD6, it would not have prevented the fork at NC7+ but a developed queen is still better than a locked-in rook - I think that after the loss of his queen he simply lost interest, I was so stunned myself that I discontinued my attack and struggled to get my rook out before the advantage was lost (14 - O-O and 15 - RE1), and then started worrying about my last knight though I could not save it (17 - NG5 and 19 - QxH7) as I treasure my knights (sometimes more than rooks or even queens)...either way, this was a rapidly-unfolding timed game and I played it rather inattentively;

I don't say no to a good (k)night, but it is seldom so good that you should never let your fellow go to sleep ... A rookie can be sacrified, but to neglect your beloved queen -- is that really such a good idea?

there is a better open match below, where my attack is precisely formulated and not prone to hesitant halts and reluctant reassessments (I think).

Okay, we'll see ... if the Critic can find anything to criticize or not ...

I agree that I like to take an aggressive initiative insofar as I am not responding to an enemy operation so that I can keep my opponent on the run. I also like to explore new possibilities and forge my own style (like free jazz improvisation) rather than stick to unyielding algorithmic principles, and so adapt to my opponent all the while. I also judge every position on it's own merit, which is perhaps where I am prone to shortcomings with respect to the classical foundations of chess, and I will trade pieces of equal value if I am not losing and the opponent doesn't strategically gain more than I do; sometimes this is a good way to energize a game in which the most advantageous direction is not immediately conspicuous. I certainly prefer knights over bishops, but not by much, which is why I will often trade my bishops for the other's knights (ultimately this leaves much less for me to calculate and makes every mounted attack much more conspicuous). I am well aware that bishops are considered more valuable in classical chess for their long range, but they are also limited to one square color, which makes them useless (to me) except for supporting roles (hence I differ from Nimzowitsch, who would advocate a more direct role for bishops, like Fianchetto; I think that blockades are wasteful and overprotective unless they are immediately necessary as prophylactics [chess prophylaxis not condoms] or have wide-ranging consequences, and I prefer directly attacking key pieces or even Zwischenzug to further direct development, rather than promoting conditions for a stalemate).

What I think is most conspicuous in what you describe here is that you have the same clear tendency as my INTj chess friend in real life to emphasize your own subjective views on how chess should be played (at least how you should play) rather than trying to acquire more knowledge and better skill through an objective study of the game.

Do you know Fischer and Capablanca's reasoning for their preference of the bishop?

Yes, they simply realized that the bishop is an objectively better piece than a knight more often than not.

Now, let's how a look at the new game:

White: NN
Black: The Raging Hummingbird

1.e4 e5 2.Be2
An extremely unusual move. I'm not even sure it has a name. The move is not that bad in itself though, except that it's too passive if White is interested in getting an advantage out of the opening.

2...Nf6
A natural and good response.

3.f3?!
White should have preferred 3.Nc3 or 3.d3 in order to get some kind of reversed Philidor.

3...d5
Logical and good.

4.exd5?!
I would probably have played 4.d3 with a very passive but defendable position. Now Black stands clearly better.

4...Nxd5 5.g3 Nc6 6.f4??
An absurd move to play here. Who is attacking whom? White should try to find a defensive set-up before it's too late.

6...Ndb4?
Not a good move. Much better is 6...Nxf4! simply winning a pawn, because 7.gxf4 is impossible due to 7...Qh4+ 8.Kf1 Bc5 with a winning attack. White gets mated after 9.Qe1 Bh3+. Also 6...exf4 is better than the move played in the game.

7.Nf3?
A better move is 7.a3! to push back the black knight. 7...Qd5?? can then be answered by 8.Bf3 with a winning advantage to White.

7...Bf5 8.d3 e4 9.O-O??
Necessary was 9.dxe4 and White can defend.

9...exf3
The rest of the game is irrelevant. Black has an easy win.

10.Rxf3 Bc5+ 11.Kf1? Nd4 12.Be3? Nbxc2 13.Nc3 Nxa1 14.Qxa1 Nxf3 15.Bxf3 Bxe3 16.Qe1 Qxd3+ 17.Be2?? Qd2?
Better was 17...Bh3 mate.

18.White resigns

[Phaedrus]

He says that always favoring knights over bishops is the type of unorthodoxy that is characteristic of LII.

That is not the only possible conclusion. Despite some years of analyses I haven't yet found a completely clear pattern in how different types tend to play chess.

[Nexus]

Better was 17...Bh3 mate.

Thanks, damn you're right...I always know when I have mate but I rarely see it right away, sometimes I even have mate but I miss it and end up losing (this happened once when I was playing my high school physics teacher)...do you know of any good ways to practice spotting mate immediately? I suppose that I should start playing against the higher 1300-1400 class, but the site where I am registered rarely pits me against rated players (not surprisingly, in my statistical profile the best winning strategy is associated directly with Chigorin's Variation). 9 - 0-0 was the enemy's attempt to save his knight and rook before attacking the center, as the direct response (9 - dxe4 bxe4) would have lead to a pin by the bishop that apparently sent my opponent into a panic. Likewise, the enemy bishop at E2 was pinned by the same move to prevent the loss of the knight and a fork between the rook and the queen. Also I apologize, I was just joking about your comment, I didn't mean to generalize your friend's playing style to all LIIs.

[jason_m]

IJ – Introverted rational (balanced-stable temperament)

Energy Exchange. They always try to conserve energy and keep it for activities that are objecti*vely necessary. They are afraid of excess activity and non-productive exhaustion of their strength. These are the most energy-saving and sensible people. They look restrained and calm and they distance themselves from the meaningless things that happen around them. They are meticulous, and they dislike doing anything differently from the usual pattern. They are very static and inert, but also very steady and they always finish what they started. They can not adapt in rapidly chang*ing and extreme situations. They quickly lose their working capacity and they get ill very often.

Emotions and behavior. At first glance, they seem to have no emotions at all because they are just so good at controlling their emotions. Actually they are just waiting for the right moment to let the emotions out to the right people. They can hold on to emotions for a very long time, which is what makes them the most likely to have accumulated stress. This means that they can get stress because they have been gathering emotions, but haven’t been expressing them. They might have random emotional outbursts. The rage of an IJ type is very scary, because he can collect insults for months or even for years. Their behavior is very consistent and predictable. Their actions don’t de*pend on the changes in the environment, they have their own rigid firm moral and practical norms. When there are conflicts between their norms and the reality, they get nervous and they start bott*ling up bad emotions. They need activities that amuse/entertain them and give them emotional and physical relaxation.


IP – Introverted irrational (perception-adapting temperament)

Energy exchange. Energy level is very unstable. They react to discomfort very strongly, which is why they use their energy to avoid unacceptable conditions or to create comfort. On their rare mo*ments of activity, they become similar to the representatives of the EP temperament, but on their moments of inactivity, they seem similar to the representatives of the IJ temperament. They tend to hide from the world and cope with their perso*nal resources, which are bigger than they might seem to others. They are not able to constantly manage with energy exchange rhythm. Their work*ing capacity is smaller than it is for the other temperaments. They only work effectively when they are perceiving the need for it or when there are important circumstances which they can’t ignore. There is no point in pushing those people, because they will seemingly agree with the aggressor, but will find ways to evade their duties. They either can’t or won’t overwork and they don’t share other people’s enthusiasm in principle.

Emotions and behavior. Highly sensitive to the emotions of others. They can’t stand unstable moods or stormy emotions, which is why they avoid conflict and they try to solve misunderstan*dings. They don’t try to change the situation, they adapt to it by showing extraordinary ingenuity and flexibility. In relaxing, comfortable and safe situations they bloom, become good and social people. They try to be good towards their sur*roundings and act in a kind and caring way. They are pleasant and easygoing people in close relations and cold and distant towards all others. It’s neces*sary to treat them in a caring and attentive way to preserve their vulnerable emotionality and fra*gile nervous system.

Phaedrus,

These descriptions are interesting. For completeness, could you provide the EP and EJ descriptions as well? I suppose that you could infer them from the fact that each is opposite to one of the two above, but it's more useful to have actual descriptions.

Jason

EDIT: You don't have to post them. I did a search online, and here they are:

Linear/pushy temperament (EJ)

Energy exchange: Clearly noticeably expends energy. Usually gives all that he has. Works swiftly and intensively. As long as he has strength he recklessly wastes it. He uses up all of his energy and then collapses with exhaustion. There is no middle ground: either maximum usage of energy (sometimes close to maximum) or total inactivity.

Recommended sports: Team sports, long-distance racing, skiing, skating, bicycle riding, auto-sport, etc.

Emotions and behavior: Straightforward, clear, rough/rigorous, no maneuvering. Not likely to have inner doubts or hesitation. They are sharp and implacable, and their actions are totally predictable. They often end up being the victims of the surroundings - non-dutiful other people, unstable situations and chaotic occurrences.

Flexible/go-getter temperament (EP)

Energy exchange: Highly dependant on external information. They are calm when there's no need to use energy, but they switch on with full power when they need to be active. It's very difficult for them to keep energy expansion at a high level for a longer period of time. In order to have flexible-laid back temperament, people have to be able to do many activities at the same time. (For example J.Caesar, who was able to read, write and talk at the same time)

Recommended sports: Body building, wrestling, weightlifting and boxing, shot-putting, hammer throwing, etc.

Emotions and Behavior: The main trait of this temperament is the rapid changes in mood and status. This is how they differ from linear/pushy temperament. They can't stand routine and predictability. Emotions seem as unexpected flashes in their their generally relaxed mood. In a moment rage can turn into indifference. Note that their emotions depend on the external changes, not on the inner psychological reasons. Their behavior is very hard to analyze because it doesn't follow any linear rules. In stead their behavior resembles a broken curve, because they try to get everything done at the same time. They give an impulse to one activity, continue doing the next activity, etc. (they keep switching between various activities). This is the only way they can get things done and it enables them to achieve a lot more than any other method.

[Phaedrus]

do you know of any good ways to practice spotting mate immediately?

The mostly recommended method for training your tactical vision is to solve tactical puzzles ("Find the combination"). There's lot of material on the Internet on various chess sites. For example the Exeter Chess Club has sorted the material according to your level of play. You are still at Minor level, but with some training and study you could probably rise to at least Intermediate.

http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/programme.html

If you are interested in reading good articles on various aspects of chess I can recommend www.chesscafe.com where you can find a lot of interesting material in the Archives.

And there are many, many other good sites out there too.

I suppose that I should start playing against the higher 1300-1400 class, but the site where I am registered rarely pits me against rated players (not surprisingly, in my statistical profile the best winning strategy is associated directly with Chigorin's Variation).

I haven't played much chess online so I don't know which site(s) to recommend.

Also I apologize, I was just joking about your comment, I didn't mean to generalize your friend's playing style to all LIIs.

I didn't think that you meant it too seriously, but I wanted to clarify to avoid any possible misunderstanding. It would of course be very convenient if it was true of all LIIs that they tend to prefer knights over bishops, but it is probably not that simple. I don't even know any famous chess player that I can say with confidence must be INTjs.

However, Anatoly Karpov is a good example of an ISTj in my opinion, and in his play we can see that everything fits his type. He has always had a stable an obvious IJ temperament with not many ups and downs. His approach to the game is systematic, rational, and very pragmatic. Contrary to what is often said about Karpov, he is not a natural born strategist but much more of a practical player that knows how to utilize his opponents mistakes. He plays rather simply and avoids risk taking. He is much better in static positions than in dynamic, and that is clearly reflected also in his opening repertoire.

I and others have talked quite a lot about the differences between Karpov, Kasparov, and some others players in for example this thread (don't miss #22 and #105):

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=14066

[Nexus]

The mostly recommended method for training your tactical vision is to solve tactical puzzles ("Find the combination"). There's lot of material on the Internet on various chess sites. For example the Exeter Chess Club has sorted the material according to your level of play. You are still at Minor level, but with some training and study you could probably rise to at least Intermediate.

http://www.exeterchessclub.org.uk/programme.html

If you are interested in reading good articles on various aspects of chess I can recommend www.chesscafe.com where you can find a lot of interesting material in the Archives.

And there are many, many other good sites out there too.


I haven't played much chess online so I don't know which site(s) to recommend.


I didn't think that you meant it too seriously, but I wanted to clarify to avoid any possible misunderstanding. It would of course be very convenient if it was true of all LIIs that they tend to prefer knights over bishops, but it is probably not that simple. I don't even know any famous chess player that I can say with confidence must be INTjs.

However, Anatoly Karpov is a good example of an ISTj in my opinion, and in his play we can see that everything fits his type. He has always had a stable an obvious IJ temperament with not many ups and downs. His approach to the game is systematic, rational, and very pragmatic. Contrary to what is often said about Karpov, he is not a natural born strategist but much more of a practical player that knows how to utilize his opponents mistakes. He plays rather simply and avoids risk taking. He is much better in static positions than in dynamic, and that is clearly reflected also in his opening repertoire.

I and others have talked quite a lot about the differences between Karpov, Kasparov, and some others players in for example this thread (don't miss #22 and #105):

http://www.the16types.info/vbulletin...ad.php?t=14066

Thanks for the links; I have not had time to read the Kasparov thread, but I intend to do so in the near future. I have an excellent match to show you - it is another knight's gambit with sacrificial bishops, only this time I was barely able to foil an early mate by 12-QxB7 but developed substantially from that point on (it has a more involved and complex middlegame than the other two, so it might shed some light on my tactics or even my type; I have fallen into quite a few such traps lately while playing opponents rated higher than myself, so I was able to stop this operation in it's infancy, apparently my opponent had staked a lot on this maneuver because he never fully recovered after it failed). It is also an excellent portrayal of hypermodern principles - the only pawn I moved in the entire game, besides 1-D4 and 2-E4, was 19-B4 to make a fork between the rook and queen; the rest were either taken during my opponent's hopeless endgame rampage or were a part of my final castle (I also managed to keep both rooks, both knights, and my queen intact, while all my opponent had leftover was a single rook which he had valiantly rescued from a fork in order to capture my long-forgotten pawns). Fortunately, you don't have to build up the entire game from notation, I have a viewer set up with the game already displayed on it, all you have to do is press 'auto' and it will quickly playback the match. I'm actually very curious to hear your thoughts on this one since you are obviously a more experienced player than me, but I don't want to bore anyone else any more on this forum or detract from the value of the typing thread itself. If you choose you can witness the game on the navigational panel of my website: http://www.meganeura.net-a.googlepages.com/mega.html. Also, if you are interested in playing me you can challenge me personally at: http://www.chess.com/echess/create_game.html?. Just type 'Meganeura' in the opponent box. I tend to not play correspondence games as well as clocked matches, either because my opponents have plenty of time to cheat with grandmaster-level computer programs or because the added pressure is missing or because I play so many games simultaneously while waiting for my opponents to respond that I forget most of the thought I had put into the previous move in each game...

[Phaedrus]

I have an excellent match to show you - it is another knight's gambit with sacrificial bishops, only this time I was barely able to foil an early mate by 12-QxB7 but developed substantially from that point on (it has a more involved and complex middlegame than the other two, so it might shed some light on my tactics or even my type; I have fallen into quite a few such traps lately while playing opponents rated higher than myself, so I was able to stop this operation in it's infancy, apparently my opponent had staked a lot on this maneuver because he never fully recovered after it failed).

Both you and your opponent played rather badly in that game. Your 5th move (5.Bd2) was either just a blunder or a bad pawn sacrifice after which Black was clearly better but missed several chances to secure his advantage. His check with the queen on a5 was a terrible blunder and the losing move.

It is also an excellent portrayal of hypermodern principles - the only pawn I moved in the entire game, besides 1-D4 and 2-E4, was 19-B4 to make a fork between the rook and queen; the rest were either taken during my opponent's hopeless endgame rampage or were a part of my final castle (I also managed to keep both rooks, both knights, and my queen intact, while all my opponent had leftover was a single rook which he had valiantly rescued from a fork in order to capture my long-forgotten pawns).

No, it has nothing to do with hypermodern principles.

[Nexus]

Both you and your opponent played rather badly in that game. Your 5th move (5.Bd2) was either just a blunder or a bad pawn sacrifice after which Black was clearly better but missed several chances to secure his advantage. His check with the queen on a5 was a terrible blunder and the losing move.


No, it has nothing to do with hypermodern principles.

What was wrong with the way I played? I think that you are mistaken about my game; perhaps you missed the point. There was an obvious queen-side corridor on the opponent's end that I wanted to exploit before those pieces could fully develop, and I think that it was well worth the effort. By sacrificing the pawn (and deliberately playing the anticipatory defensive maneuver 5-Bd2, which both intentionally accounts for the pawn sacrifice and actively prevents knight advancement afterwards to any of the four possibilities beyond the fifth row) I was able to confine the knight to the opponent's side (I also kept the knight out of the path of the bishop's check 6-Bb5+) so that I could concentrate on offense without requiring much in the way of defense (the enemy only came across the fifth row twice in the whole game: the first time it was with his forked queen which was taken on the next move, the second time it was a desperate ploy and he was mated four moves later), and I followed up with 8-Qf3 without becoming overly obsessed with the unimportant activity occurring immediately before the opponent's king, which can often spell defeat (I noticed that you criticized my other games for not fully defending the center positions, and when I mentioned this you said that your opinions were not biased and only objective; however, the direct path is not always the surest path to mate).

5.Bxf6+?!
Premature in my opinion. Why release the tension and give up the bishop pair when no concrete is gain is in sight? 5.e4 would have put Black to a tougher test. A sound and logical alternative was also 5.e3.

I see that you favor putting pressure on the center with as many pieces as possible...while I enjoy this, unless it is relevant to my plans for mate it really only tests my ability to keep track of the standoff's outcome and not the rest of the game.

When I analyze games of chess I try to be as objective as possible in my analyses, so what I favour personally can't be that easily determined based on my comments. I tried to indicate the objectively best moves, but I didn't spend much time analyzing, so I might have missed something.

To clarify, in this instance, I was less interested in the opponent's capabilities to support a single standoff than in the progression of the game, which you said was premature. Sometimes territory and strategic advantages are worth material loss, especially in the opening game (like the pawn I sacrificed in order to trade bishops early in the game, of which you also disapprove...as you can tell by the prevalence of many different schools of thought in chess, there is more than one way, especially your way, to win the game, it isn't tic-tac-toe; I know that my biggest mistakes usually occur in the endgame). There is a lot of psychological prodding which may seem illogical to the unsuspecting perceiver. I told you, I don't play chess like a robot, I prey on the enemy's pre-inclinations and expectations. I am not always conspicuous, in fact when I play basketball I often secure a clear advantage by faking out the other team, but perhaps my analogy to hypermodernism was overstated, after all I allowed my pawns to act as decoys that did not develop.

[JuJu]

Linear/pushy temperament (EJ)

Energy exchange: Clearly noticeably expends energy. Usually gives all that he has. Works swiftly and intensively. As long as he has strength he recklessly wastes it. He uses up all of his energy and then collapses with exhaustion. There is no middle ground: either maximum usage of energy (sometimes close to maximum) or total inactivity.

Recommended sports: Team sports, long-distance racing, skiing, skating, bicycle riding, auto-sport, etc.

Emotions and behavior: Straightforward, clear, rough/rigorous, no maneuvering. Not likely to have inner doubts or hesitation. They are sharp and implacable, and their actions are totally predictable. They often end up being the victims of the surroundings - non-dutiful other people, unstable situations and chaotic occurrences.

Flexible/go-getter temperament (EP)

Energy exchange: Highly dependant on external information. They are calm when there's no need to use energy, but they switch on with full power when they need to be active. It's very difficult for them to keep energy expansion at a high level for a longer period of time. In order to have flexible-laid back temperament, people have to be able to do many activities at the same time. (For example J.Caesar, who was able to read, write and talk at the same time)

Recommended sports: Body building, wrestling, weightlifting and boxing, shot-putting, hammer throwing, etc.

Emotions and Behavior: The main trait of this temperament is the rapid changes in mood and status. This is how they differ from linear/pushy temperament. They can't stand routine and predictability. Emotions seem as unexpected flashes in their their generally relaxed mood. In a moment rage can turn into indifference. Note that their emotions depend on the external changes, not on the inner psychological reasons. Their behavior is very hard to analyze because it doesn't follow any linear rules. In stead their behavior resembles a broken curve, because they try to get everything done at the same time. They give an impulse to one activity, continue doing the next activity, etc. (they keep switching between various activities). This is the only way they can get things done and it enables them to achieve a lot more than any other method.

Thanks Jason, and Phaedrus for the earlier descriptions... This is good stuff.

[Phaedrus]

What was wrong with the way I played?

Only that you played to many weak moves and ended up in a worse, nearly lost, position out of the opening.

I think that you are mistaken about my game; perhaps you missed the point.

I am not terribly mistaken in my evaluation of the quality of your and your opponent's play, but I might have missed some point you wanted to make. What exactly was your point?

There was an obvious queen-side corridor on the opponent's end that I wanted to exploit before those pieces could fully develop, and I think that it was well worth the effort.

It would not have been worth the effort if I had played Black instead of your opponent, that's for sure. Your opponent did not play well.

By sacrificing the pawn (and deliberately playing the anticipatory defensive maneuver 5-Bd2, which both intentionally accounts for the pawn sacrifice and actively prevents knight advancement afterwards to any of the four possibilities beyond the fifth row) I was able to confine the knight to the opponent's side

You seem to put enormous energy on trying to justify your own play, and that's an interesting type phenomenon, because in that respect you are extremely similar to that INTj chess player I know IRL that I was referring to before. But, objectively speaking, 5.Bd2 is just a bad move that loses a pawn for almost no compensation. After 5.Bd2 Black stands clearly better.

(I also kept the knight out of the path of the bishop's check 6-Bb5+) so that I could concentrate on offense without requiring much in the way of defense (the enemy only came across the fifth row twice in the whole game: the first time it was with his forked queen which was taken on the next move, the second time it was a desperate ploy and he was mated four moves later), and I followed up with 8-Qf3 without becoming overly obsessed with the unimportant activity occurring immediately before the opponent's king, which can often spell defeat

The truth is that your opponent missed several opportunities to punish your over-optimistic play. He played many weak moves, but despite those errors he didn't really stand worse before he gave his queen away.

(I noticed that you criticized my other games for not fully defending the center positions, and when I mentioned this you said that your opinions were not biased and only objective; however, the direct path is not always the surest path to mate).

If your opponent is a really bad player, you might occasionally gain victory faster by playing objectively weak moves yourself in order to bluff your opponent. But such simple traps lead to success much less often when you start to meet better players.

To clarify, in this instance, I was less interested in the opponent's capabilities to support a single standoff than in the progression of the game, which you said was premature.

If your opponent had found the better moves that he had at his disposal, you would have faced serious problems and would have had to fight for a draw at best.

Sometimes territory and strategic advantages are worth material loss, especially in the opening game

Yes, but not so in that particular game of yours.

(like the pawn I sacrificed in order to trade bishops early in the game, of which you also disapprove...as you can tell by the prevalence of many different schools of thought in chess, there is more than one way, especially your way, to win the game, it isn't tic-tac-toe; I know that my biggest mistakes usually occur in the endgame).

Maybe, I don't know. But at least in the above game you made several big mistakes in the opening.

There is a lot of psychological prodding which may seem illogical to the unsuspecting perceiver.

Could be. But that is irrelevant to the objective quality of the moves.

I told you, I don't play chess like a robot, I prey on the enemy's pre-inclinations and expectations.

And you don't seem to be very interested in trying to improve your play.

[Nexus]

Only that you played to many weak moves and ended up in a worse, nearly lost, position out of the opening.

I am not terribly mistaken in my evaluation of the quality of your and your opponent's play, but I might have missed some point you wanted to make. What exactly was your point?

It would not have been worth the effort if I had played Black instead of your opponent, that's for sure. Your opponent did not play well.

You seem to put enormous energy on trying to justify your own play, and that's an interesting type phenomenon, because in that respect you are extremely similar to that INTj chess player I know IRL that I was referring to before. But, objectively speaking, 5.Bd2 is just a bad move that loses a pawn for almost no compensation. After 5.Bd2 Black stands clearly better.

The truth is that your opponent missed several opportunities to punish your over-optimistic play. He played many weak moves, but despite those errors he didn't really stand worse before he gave his queen away.

If your opponent is a really bad player, you might occasionally gain victory faster by playing objectively weak moves yourself in order to bluff your opponent. But such simple traps lead to success much less often when you start to meet better players.

If your opponent had found the better moves that he had at his disposal, you would have faced serious problems and would have had to fight for a draw at best.

Yes, but not so in that particular game of yours.

Maybe, I don't know. But at least in the above game you made several big mistakes in the opening.

Could be. But that is irrelevant to the objective quality of the moves.

And you don't seem to be very interested in trying to improve your play.

It was a timed game, so I was playing by instinct, and my opponent consistently ranks higher than I do, so he is not weaker than me. How would you have responded to 5-Bd2? The knight is led to the pawn like a lamb to the slaughter, and is then immobilized by the bishop while I become free to attack, so how is black better off? I am certainly interested in improving my play, you should not think that I am not because you cannot see it. Yesterday I discarded a Queen's Gambit routine that I had been in the habit of using because I found that it weakened my rook. I also do exercises to improve my pattern recognition, but most of what I show you is what I do know and not what I do not know (with the exception of my weak endgame, which is sometimes compromised in its own anticipation). However I will not feel compelled to blindly follow general principles like some form of absolute truth in the absence of knowledge...

[Phaedrus]

How would you have responded to 5-Bd2?The knight is led to the pawn like a lamb to the slaughter, and is then immobilized by the bishop while I become free to attack, so how is black better off?

I would have responded to 5.Bd2 by taking the pawn (5...Nxd5) and after 6.Bb5+ Bd7 (a slightly unnatural move but perhaps best in this particular situation since the more natural 6...Nc6 may run into some problems after 7.Qf3) 7.Bxd7+ I would definitely have taken with the queen (7...Qxd7) after which White has nothing for the pawn, and Black has good winning chances.

I am certainly interested in improving my play, you should not think that I am not because you cannot see it. Yesterday I discarded a Queen's Gambit routine that I had been in the habit of using because I found that it weakened my rook. I also do exercises to improve my pattern recognition, but most of what I show you is what I do know and not what I do not know (with the exception of my weak endgame, which is sometimes compromised in its own anticipation).

But you don't seem to realize that some of the moves and ideas that you believe are good are in fact bad. And you protest when I point out the truth to you.

However I will not feel compelled to blindly follow general principles like some form of absolute truth in the absence of knowledge...

That is a good attitude if not taken to its extreme. But you would definitely improve your play if you learned at least some general principles before you try to be original and start to look for the exceptions.

[Nexus]

I would have responded to 5.Bd2 by taking the pawn (5...Nxd5) and after 6.Bb5+ Bd7 (a slightly unnatural move but perhaps best in this particular situation since the more natural 6...Nc6 may run into some problems after 7.Qf3) 7.Bxd7+ I would definitely have taken with the queen (7...Qxd7) after which White has nothing for the pawn, and Black has good winning chances.


But you don't seem to realize that some of the moves and ideas that you believe are good are in fact bad. And you protest when I point out the truth to you.


That is a good attitude if not taken to its extreme. But you would definitely improve your play if you learned at least some general principles before you try to be original and start to look for the exceptions.

That is not so different from what my opponent did, he used his knight instead of his queen to take the bishop and eventually lost both. His other knight remained immobilized, and had he chosen to wreak havoc on my end with his queen as you seem to advocate, his knight would have only been an asset to him. Thus I fail to see the weakness of the move. However, if I did not want to improve my game I would not challenge your assertions and ask you why you think that the moves you criticize are indeed faulty; hence I thank you for analysis whether I agree with it or not.

[Phaedrus]

That is not so different from what my opponent did, he used his knight instead of his queen to take the bishop and eventually lost both. His other knight remained immobilized, and had he chosen to wreak havoc on my end with his queen as you seem to advocate, his knight would have only been an asset to him. Thus I fail to see the weakness of the move.

Well, the most natural and logical move is to take with the queen in order to protect the pawn on b7 and be able to develop the queen's knight to the more active square c6, but you are right that 7...Nxd7 is not a bad move either. After 7...Nxd7 8.Qf3 e6! Black is also clearly better, for example 9.c4 N5b6! and again White has nothing for the pawn. It's actually hard to tell for sure which move is best -- 7...Nxd7 or 7...Qxd7. Both lead to a clear advantage for Black.

[Nexus]

Well, the most natural and logical move is to take with the queen in order to protect the pawn on b7 and be able to develop the queen's knight to the more active square c6, but you are right that 7...Nxd7 is not a bad move either. After 7...Nxd7 8.Qf3 e6! Black is also clearly better, for example 9.c4 N5b6! and again White has nothing for the pawn. It's actually hard to tell for sure which move is best -- 7...Nxd7 or 7...Qxd7. Both lead to a clear advantage for Black.

Here you clearly demonstrate my own preference for the knight. The knight (b8) initially defends the same positions as does the pawn itself (b7), so its use would not necessarily weaken the other pieces; if the position is not weakened, you might use the knight to defend the king and take my bishop with yours instead, which can then occupy c6 as you suggested of the knight (though this position is hindered by the presence of the other knight). On 9-Nb6 I can attack the knight you claim is better with the same bishop I used to attack him on 8-Nf6, and it's only because of the very move (5-Bd2) you were so quick to criticize.

[Logos]

Wow, this thread has become boring.

[Nexus]

Wow, this thread has become boring.

Sorry, I knew that would happen. I will stop discussing philosophy, chess, or any other matter on this thread unless it directly exposes my socionics type.

[Phaedrus]

Here you clearly demonstrate my own preference for the knight.

No, I don't. What I said has nothing to do with any preference of the knight over the bishop.

The knight (b8) initially defends the same positions as does the pawn itself (b7), so its use would not necessarily weaken the other pieces; if the position is not weakened, you might use the knight to defend the king and take my bishop with yours instead, which can then occupy c6 as you suggested of the knight (though this position is hindered by the presence of the other knight).

What are you actually trying to say here? The knight on b8 does initially defend the same squares (c6 and a6) as the pawn on b7 -- yes, that's right (but so what?). So its (the knight's) use would not necessarily "weaken the other pieces" -- what does that mean? And then you say that you might use the knight to "defend the king" and "take my bishop with"... what? The knight? The queen?

I don't know what you are trying to say here, but it has little or (more likely) no relevance to what I am saying about your position, which is still very bad after 5.Bd2.

On 9-Nb6 I can attack the knight you claim is better with the same bishop I used to attack him on 8-Nf6, and it's only because of the very move (5-Bd2) you were so quick to criticize.

Irrelevant. You don't "attack" my knight with your black squared bishop, because the knight is defended by the pawn on a7 (and the queen on d8) and the bishop is more valuable than the knight, at least in this position. I have never claimed that the knight is better than the bishop, I have claimed that Black is better. Black's position is better than White's -- and that's unquestionably true.

[Nexus]

Having discovered Smilexian Socionics and finding it to agree with my own expectations, specifically that the temperament is the most definitive aspect of the persona because it is the most habitually ingrained and is more independent of circumstance than are the avenues of information metabolism, I have decided that I am decidedly IXTj-Ti. I would like to thank everyone for their contributions to this discussion, and I would still like to encourage anyone who has a novel perspective on my type to share it on this thread.

[XoX]

I think you should finish the job. Like, are you more on the Alpha or Beta quadra side? Or are you trying to say you swing between them?

[Nexus]

I think you should finish the job. Like, are you more on the Alpha or Beta quadra side? Or are you trying to say you swing between them?

Well, according to Smilexian Socionics the temperament stays the same but the other values can be altered...the Reinin dichotomies will all change together to reflect a type transformation, but this must occur within the same temperament (which is least likely to change over time) to keep the cycle intact and the Reinin traits together.

[XoX]

Well, according to Smilexian Socionics the temperament stays the same but the other values can be altered...the Reinin dichotomies will all change together to reflect a type transformation, but this must occur within the same temperament (which is least likely to change over time) to keep the cycle intact and the Reinin traits together.

I am not sure if I buy this hypothesis over a changing type (even if within temperament). So I was asking whether you have observed this kind of swinging between LII and LSI in yourself? I have never observed this kind of type change in anyone I know. Smilex claimed he has observed this in himself and he has changed types from ESFj to ENTj to ESTj (if I remember it correctly).

[Nexus]

I am not sure if I buy this hypothesis over a changing type (even if within temperament). So I was asking whether you have observed this kind of swinging between LII and LSI in yourself? I have never observed this kind of type change in anyone I know. Smilex claimed he has observed this in himself and he has changed types from ESFj to ENTj to ESTj (if I remember it correctly).

To be honest, I use both sense and intuition a lot, depending on the circumstances, so I find it hard to decide (Expat also suggested that I could be LSI, and lately I have been getting a lot of LII typings). Since I have aspects of both LSI and LII (especially the logical subtypes of each) and an introverted rational temperament in general, I wouldn't want to limit myself to either alone. Additionally, SE's temperament theories to me are much more consistent than Quadras, VI, Model Phi, Supersocionics, etc, and are similar to my own independent hypotheses which I developed in isolation. After all, when you have an abstract problem you won't primarily use sense, and when you are searching for something you won't primarily use intuition...besides the factors of lifestyle and attentive habits that may cause an extreme compulsion to use one or the other exclusively, I expect most people to be pretty balanced in this respect.

[XoX]

After all, when you have an abstract problem you won't primarily use sense, and when you are searching for something you won't primarily use intuition...besides the factors of lifestyle and attentive habits that may cause an extreme compulsion to use one or the other exclusively, I expect most people to be pretty balanced in this respect.

Hmm...most people pretty balanced. How so? My experience is that e.g. ESEs and EIEs are different from each other in many ways and I would find it difficult to see them switching to each other. I'm not saying that the EIE is also naturally better with abstract subjects or ESE is better at cooking. These kind of talents are not directly related to type. I just think they seem like completely different kind of beasts. Well, you probably could find a gray area person who is hard to put into either category but those who are clearly one or the other..hard to see them switching.

[Nexus]

Hmm...most people pretty balanced. How so? My experience is that e.g. ESEs and EIEs are different from each other in many ways and I would find it difficult to see them switching to each other. I'm not saying that the EIE is also naturally better with abstract subjects or ESE is better at cooking. These kind of talents are not directly related to type. I just think they seem like completely different kind of beasts. Well, you probably could find a gray area person who is hard to put into either category but those who are clearly one or the other..hard to see them switching.

That inspires me...I was contemplating how people act differently around different people (as though they were of a different type); I have not studied the type relations in detail, but perhaps there is a relative compensation of functions that exists that causes the types to change in a cycle, or it could be a maintenance system for routinely energizing each function set that seems to the observer to be a type shift.

[FDG]

I expect most people to be pretty balanced in this respect.

The presence of Xi subtype dynamics and Xe subtypes statics contradicts this.

[Nexus]

The presence of Xi subtype dynamics and Xe subtypes statics contradicts this.

If you are hypothetically unbalanced, then speak for yourself, not a quarter of the types. BTW, last time I checked 75% qualified as most.

[FDG]

If you are hypothetically unbalanced, then speak for yourself, not a quarter of the types. BTW, last time I checked 75% qualified as most.

What are you talking about? Given your definition of balanced between sensing and intuition, then a Ni-subtype or Si-subtype EJ will not be balanced in them, preferring instead a balance between Thiking and Feeling. This shows how meaningless the definition of "balanced" is, because it carries a value judgement.

By the way, if types are equally distributed, those I spoke about are 50 percent of the socion, so you are wrong about this too, lol!