Chess: Is it type-related?

[Gilly]

Dude please shut up

Statistical correlations on this small of a scale say absolutely nothing. The best chess player on this forum is an EIE.

[Creepy-Snaps]

The best chess player on this forum is an EIE.

No, I'm an ESE.

[Gilly]

You're such a twat that I hope numbers would beat you badly enough to warrant crucifixion.

[Creepy-Snaps]

You're such a twat that I hope numbers would beat you badly enough to warrant crucifixion.

I would love to play numbers! It's been a while since I've faced someone better than me.

Dear numbers, if you see this post, and you'd like to play sometime, send me a PM. Maybe we can set up a game on pogo or something.



Btw Gilly... we got along perfectly before this... what's up? You disagree with my post? I wasn't just basing it off of 'statistical correlations' on this thread alone... but also of players I've faced my entire life. +logic. Sorry if you disagree.

[Gilly]

It just sounds like a bunch of crap and I can't see how it would be si related from a theoretical standpoint.

[Creepy-Snaps]

It just sounds like a bunch of crap and I can't see how it would be si related from a theoretical standpoint.

Ah gotcha. I just noticed the tendency mainly. Not sure if I can explain it theoretically. But I'll try.

Like I said before, Si being related to processing how each item relates to another, from one thing to the next, very directly, in terms of strategy. Also having an advanced understanding of the positioning of each piece, distance on the board. And also being able to internally appreciate the power of each piece directly. If Se is about obtaining power, Si is more about understanding power.

Actually, let me just link this quickly:

http://wikisocion.org/en/index.php?t...verted_sensing

focuses on tangible, direct (external) connections (introverted) between processes (dynamic) happening in one time, i.e. the physical, sensual experience of interactions between objects. This leads to an awareness of internal tangible physical states and how various physical fluctuations or substances are directly transferred between objects, such as motion, temperature, or dirtiness. The awareness of these tangible physical processes consequently leads to an awareness of health, or an optimum balance with one's environment. The individual physical reaction to concrete surroundings is main way we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure.

My brief summary: Si is very much a focus on the "physical interactions between objects" which directly correlates with chess. Also understanding the power, the "internal tangible physical states", or relative value of each chess piece in a changing position.

Si helps evaluate not only the material value of chess pieces, but also in evaluating positions. Like they said, an "optimum balance with one's environment". Si also affects how "we perceive and define aesthetics, comfort, convenience, and pleasure". A lot of advanced chess positions are very aesthetic, and chess itself is sometimes referred to as an art. Being able to use Si to evaluate a position, especially the physical "comfort" if you're under attack, as well as the "convenience" of being able to move one piece and swing it to the other side of the board, such as a night for example, is very helpful.

Mobility is often an important parameter used by chess programs in evaluating positions, the 'convenience' of moving your pieces and the amount of space they control, and Si is directly related to that.

If you read the other stuff on that link, you can see other reasons how Si could help tremendously in chess.

Maybe someone else could do a better job explaining it than I can, hope that helps.

Again, I'm just saying I've noticed a general underlying trend that Si is the most important function for chess, but at advanced levels, any type can be good. So my disclaimer applies here, and for numbers, and for all ENFjs. Of course they can be good too.

And with that, time for bed.

[jughead]

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

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

Try freakin adderall. My own mental performance is highly dependent on vigourous exercise. A planned session results in much better performance.

[The Ineffable]

One moment of carelessness might cost you an important piece and your game is ruined.

Interesting. Could you pease justify your conclusion? Is that something you perceive or you're just not so fond of chess, learning that from someone else/literature?
Also, when that happens, do you still play until the conclusion or just quit, admitting defeat?

[DirectorAbbie]

Squishy and I just played a game of chess. He started by sticking a pawn out by itself in line for my queen to take it, then spent several moves chasing my queen around. Brilliand came by and referred to the castle as a "rook," and I suggested we name them castles so we'd be sure they were. He named one Wichita Kansas and said that his side spoke a different language; "kansas" meant "castle." I named mine Old Beef and Sida Beef. He named his other one Topeka Kansas. Then I named my Queen "Ish."

Squishy enjoyed torturing his prisoners. Our SLE brother stole Wichita Beef, which I had captured, and we had to get it back. Then our queens danced around. Then they were abducted by aliens. On Squishy's turn, there was an earthquake, and all the pieces went to one side of the board. Then the aliens put the queens back and his captured my king. So Squishy won the game.

[woofwoofl]

Squishy and I just played a game of chess. He started by sticking a pawn out by itself in line for my queen to take it, then spent several moves chasing my queen around. Brilliand came by and referred to the castle as a "rook," and I suggested we name them castles so we'd be sure they were. He named one Wichita Kansas and said that his side spoke a different language; "kansas" meant "castle." I named mine Old Beef and Sida Beef. He named his other one Topeka Kansas. Then I named my Queen "Ish."

Squishy enjoyed torturing his prisoners. Our SLE brother stole Wichita Beef, which I had captured, and we had to get it back. Then our queens danced around. Then they were abducted by aliens. On Squishy's turn, there was an earthquake, and all the pieces went to one side of the board. Then the aliens put the queens back and his captured my king. So Squishy won the game.

that's totally awesome, especially the name "Old Beef" for one of the rooks (sounds like a old west town sheriff, grey hair, on the big side, probably with a moustache)

[The Reality Denialist]

I find this interesting.

I'm truly horrible at it. Mainly due to concentration problems, I think. It is not very conceptual game. It has fixed moves, character etc. Whenever I have played it I end up comparing it to other games, thinking about adding something extra to it, how it came to be, imagining why the opponent is so much in the present. Taking the whole board in with its details and that is truly beyond my capabilities.

What is his type (Magnus Carlsen)?

Pretty impressive. He claims to remember moves from 10,000 separate games.
I even suck memory card games. My nephew (5 years) beats me at memory card games.
I'm much better when I don't have to concentrate external details.

[Beautiful sky]

No

[nondescript]

Such a boring, antique game. Competitive and rote repetitive too and both are BIG minuses imo.

...why'd anyone do such a thing?

[Beautiful sky]

I am absolutely decent at chess

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

let's play

I was always hesitant to learn it and my dad wouldn't teach me. It's not that hard. Learn what the role of the pieces are and how they move on the board from then take note of the strategic moves that work.

[uncivilized]

I used to be obsessed with chess, would spend a lot of time playing against the computer and analyzing various strategies while in high school. I very rarely lost against human opponents because the computer was better than most of them, and I could often beat the computer on difficult settings. I do think chess is a very Si/Ne type of game, you have to visualize it as an evolving puzzle. I think the mistake most players make is that they see it as just a move-by-move type of game and fail to visualize all of the pieces acting together over time and thus failing to see all of the pieces working together as a whole entity in a sense.

[The Reality Denialist]

I can do math. I can think in vague patterns with very little details. I think I construct lots of xy-graphs sort of information and correlative data in my mind how something behaves when I evaluate different things. I can't do chess. I have no idea how to take in pieces. You got to have some actual Si to back it up and it involves very good concrete memory . Can you play chess without razor sharp memory data bank? It will be extremely hard.
I have been in an official cognitive test where I just couldn't repeat the hand movements that touched set of pillars. It flew way over my head. (I have actually lived my life as shortsighted person for a long time without realizing that I needed glasses, badly. I have seen everything as "little" fuzzy.)

lataus.jpg

[ryoka14]

People who play chess will have an inclination for either strategy or tactics so it probably correlates with that dichotomy lol.

What i mean by that is players will either have a game plan where they are focused on controlling fundamental elements of the game such as, ie how much space do i control, how do i expand my position, is my pawn structure stable etc OR they will heavily focus on certain tacts. i need to find a fork, i need to pin this. how can i bait him into getting his piece here, if i do this he will do that. When I played I was always tactical. I think it's the inclination of people who focus on details and hae a more narrow focus

[Sol]

NT fun mostly

[nondescript]

No. Type has nothing to do with the ability to play it.

HOWEVER! Everyone plays it for a different reason(F egos can even get into it if they are lacking a human contact). With that said, I think it'd correlate the most with Delta STs > Gamma NTs > Beta STs > Alpha NTs.

[ClownsandEntropy]

I find this interesting.

I'm truly horrible at it. Mainly due to concentration problems, I think. It is not very conceptual game. It has fixed moves, character etc. Whenever I have played it I end up comparing it to other games, thinking about adding something extra to it, how it came to be, imagining why the opponent is so much in the present. Taking the whole board in with its details and that is truly beyond my capabilities.

I totally see it like this. There's no overarching framework to be discovered with chess. It's just a series of this-causes-this-causes-this and you think about all of the choices and which is best. And I never got to the level when you can focus on playing the player - which I think would be fun because psychology - and I'm sure that you eventually move beyond that as chess masters stifle their personality with overanalysing the games.

[Beautiful sky]

NT fun mostly

Great! Now I'm NT

Any type can Lear to play chess. It's not rocket science. I know I've take classes that resemble rocket science. They are hard.

[ryoka14]

I totally see it like this. There's no overarching framework to be discovered with chess. It's just a series of this-causes-this-causes-this and you think about all of the choices and which is best. And I never got to the level when you can focus on playing the player - which I think would be fun because psychology - and I'm sure that you eventually move beyond that as chess masters stifle their personality with overanalysing the games.

its one of the oldest and most studied games. Read up on how chess developed, the different metagames that took hold, different strategies that were discovered then countered. It's a great study on how game strategy develops given enough time until it is eventually almost completely solved, lack of personality = every best move has been studied and solved for the openings etc. but that's not a reason to call it inferior. It's just old

[ClownsandEntropy]

its one of the oldest and most studied games. Read up on how chess developed, the different metagames that took hold, different strategies that were discovered then countered. It's a great study on how game strategy develops given enough time until it is eventually almost completely solved, lack of personality = every best move has been studied and solved for the openings etc. but that's not a reason to call it inferior. It's just old

Don't want to get off tangent too much, but I think it's not so much the fact that it is solved as much as the fact that it can be solved so computationally. Like Catan has some pretty reliable strategies (probably), but you still don't know if it will work because of chance and the people, and you need to see where the board takes you. To me it seems like a dull stint in fully exhaustive optimisation. I compare it to procurement in a company (e.g. like finding the cheapest steel supplier) - I don't want to look into the details about the suppliers, that's just filling in boxes and adding up the outcomes. Purely logistical. Barely strategic. The one thing I like about chess is that when both players can see someone is going to win, they say "why even bother!" and start a new game.

[The Reality Denialist]

Searched and found this thread about focus
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/gene...u-stay-focused

You need to develop a killer instinct. When you are ahead, you should be energized to follow through and destroy the opponent to rack up the win.

Thanks, but I prefer processed foods over cannibalism. But never say never. Maybe I can develop taste for non processed chess player's flesh. It is a stretch but YOLO.

[ryoka14]

Don't want to get off tangent too much, but I think it's not so much the fact that it is solved as much as the fact that it can be solved so computationally. Like Catan has some pretty reliable strategies (probably), but you still don't know if it will work because of chance and the people, and you need to see where the board takes you. To me it seems like a dull stint in fully exhaustive optimisation. I compare it to procurement in a company (e.g. like finding the cheapest steel supplier) - I don't want to look into the details about the suppliers, that's just filling in boxes and adding up the outcomes. Purely logistical. Barely strategic. The one thing I like about chess is that when both players can see someone is going to win, they say "why even bother!" and start a new game.

all games have an objective and rules soThey're essentially all optimization problems. Chess is not fundamentally more computational than any other game, it just seems that way because it is very simplistic: I move you move and so it almost forces you to approach it from s logical view. But all games Start with rules and objectives and it's just that chess has been around long enough for an extremely thorough investigation of the best strategies to work and a very well developed metagame. The reason why you think Catan is different is because you are playing against people who are "wildcards" aka people who will make suboptimal plays and thus keep the metagame unsettled, but as knowledge increases and everyone learns the optimal strategy which will occur through enough time it would be very similar to chess. And sure you can have random elements like how the board is arranged die roll etc but those are just more variables and more variance, not making it any less computational, it just has the illusion that it's not because you won't get punished as badly for playing illogically

[lkdhf qkb]

I've been playing Chess quite a lot the last months. It's an aquired taste, before this year I disliked it because I thought it was boring. Now that I've gained some insight into it, I like the "simplicity" of it; I've always hated the overly complex board games where you have tens of stats, 5 missions, HP, EP, to collect equipment, do quests and all that and take like hours to play. That's like creating oneself problems to understand and solve when I already have the real life ones. No fun.

Chess feels like an 'art' in comparison. You know the outcome is binary and that each decision you and your opponent make will take you one step closer to it. It's like this game jenga where you have a block tower and each turn someone has to take one block away, and the one who makes the whole tower tumble looses. I like how everything beyond the 8*8 board falls out of focus for 30 minutes. I don't do probabilities or strategies, only tactics. The whole game starts ordered; move-by-move the players create a 'knot' that will unravel if you place the 'right' pieces at the right spots. Solving the puzzle, finding the key. Sometimes I admire the dexterity of a move that changes everything, other times I'm stunned by a miscalculation or exhilarated by a win by one turn or one second. I'm playing out of a sense of esthetics.

Playing strategy games compared to taking real life decisions is like fencing compared to war. In a chess game, I feel like a 'master' who is able to judge risk and consequences, while in real life I feel most often like a pawn. Not because I'm passive, but mostly because I feel like having no clue of the 'rules' or implications of my choices. There is a beauty in Chess which is difficult to replicate in real life because tracking back decisive moments is way more difficult. The world is messy

[on a peaceful hiatus]

have been spending some time typing famous chess players:

Magnus Carlsen: LSI
Hikaru Nakamura, Alexandra Botez, Garry Kasparov: LIE
Bobby Fischer, Viswanathan Anand, Fabiano Caruana: ILI
Alexander Grischuk: ILE
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave: LII
Jan Nepomnjaschtschi: (maybe IEE but no guarantee)
Eric Hansen: ESI
Aman Hambleton: EIE
Eric Rosen: EII
Maurice Ashley: extroverted


a lot of chess players seem to be normalising subtypes, but it's hard to say which function exactly helps for the game.

[ouronis]

have been spending some time typing famous chess players:

Magnus Carlsen: LSI
Hikaru Nakamura, Alexandra Botez, Garry Kasparov: LIE
Bobby Fischer, Viswanathan Anand, Fabiano Caruana: ILI
Alexander Grischuk: ILE
Maxime Vachier-Lagrave: LII
Jan Nepomnjaschtschi: (maybe IEE but no guarantee)
Eric Hansen: ESI
Aman Hambleton: EIE
Eric Rosen: EII
Maurice Ashley: extroverted


a lot of chess players seem to be normalising subtypes, but it's hard to say which function exactly helps for the game.

I had assigned Magnus LSE and Hikaru ILI in the back of my mind. Seems like we disagree about the extra/intro part.

I think at this high of a level of play, you can tell a lot about a person by how they make their decisions. I would just hesitate to do that with an unskilled or moderately skilled player because their decision-making is not really fully formed, although with some time you might be able to see it in how they learn.

[Aramas]

The current top grandmaster is LSI: Magnus Carlsen. I would expect thinkers to have an advantage in this game. It's pure external strategy/tactics.

I've noticed an ESI and an EIE try distracting people while playing board games like these. Jangling their keys or tapping their fingers on the table. Anything they can do to get an advantage.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

I had assigned Magnus LSE and Hikaru ILI in the back of my mind. Seems like we disagree about the extra/intro part.

the reason why I think Nakamura is an LIE: I watched a couple of his livestreams and he is always rather focused, interacts a lot with his viewers and answers questions while playing the game. he talks a lot, too. a couple of months ago, he had the business idea to teach famous youtubers chess. it lead to a lot of criticism, some players were disappointed that he gave unskilled people so much attention. I think even now he still teaches some of them. this indicated to me that he's a democratic type, and also an entrepreneur. he analyses very fast, and seems to deal really well under time pressure, which is a characteristic of extroverts. they think faster than introverts. if you watch a carlsen stream, you will notice that he speaks rather slow, is not so involved in communication and frequently gets lost in thoughts.

I remember that Grischuk said in an interview that a lot of grandmasters have autistic tendencies, and I also suspect that asperger/autism is prevalent among GM's. regarding the functions, I would say that a strong development of Te/Ti gives you an advantage.

[ouronis]

the reason why I think Nakamura is an LIE: I watched a couple of his livestreams and he is always rather focused, interacts a lot with his viewers and answers questions while playing the game. he talks a lot, too. a couple of months ago, he had the business idea to teach famous youtubers chess. it lead to a lot of criticism, some players were disappointed that he gave unskilled people so much attention. I think even now he still teaches some of them. this indicated to me that he's a democratic type, and also an entrepreneur. he analyses very fast, and seems to deal really well under time pressure, which is a characteristic of extroverts. they think faster than introverts. if you watch a carlsen stream, you will notice that he speaks rather slow, is not so involved in communication and frequently gets lost in thoughts.

I remember that Grischuk said in an interview that a lot of grandmasters have autistic tendencies, and I also suspect that asperger/autism is prevalent among GM's. regarding the functions, I would say that a strong development of Te/Ti gives you an advantage.

I kinda went along with that wave of chess streaming popularity earlier this year and I can definitely see where your points are coming from with Magnus. Hikaru I'm still not so sure of. You mention time pressure, but Magnus is almost as highly rated at blitz as Hikaru.

[on a peaceful hiatus]

You mention time pressure, but Magnus is almost as highly rated at blitz as Hikaru.

I knew you would mention that. I don't really have a clear answer here. I think that Carlsen is a creative subtype in Gulenko's DCNH system and might just be better at making quick decisions in ambiguous positions, because he has Ne as accentuated function. chess players are not really known for sharing a lot of private information, so I can't really provide you with more evidence. my typing is mostly based on intuition. for a long time I thought that Carlsen had the same type as me.

[Tarnished]

As an ILI, I don't like Chess. I alway forgot the space each pieces can move,alway make small mistake that I saw S user can easily avoid. Feel like it require alot of space-imagination, space-detail-focus. It does not suit for Ni dom user. (when I want to use my sensing function - Se, I enjoy real time strategy/action games more, it feel much more excited, chess is boring)

I enjoy Poker more. I can rely more on my intitution, reading the other players's patterns, also the money are easily to calculate than those fucking chess squares.

[The Reality Denialist]

Probably good short term visual memory helps. Mine is shit largely due to organic reasons.

http://www.chessmaniac.com/memory-and-chess/

In 1894, Alfred Binet conducted one of the first psychological studies into chess. He investigated the cognitive facilities of chess masters. Binet hypothesized that chess depends upon the phenomenological qualities of visual memory. He found that only chess masters were able to play chess successfully without seeing the board and intermediate players found it impossible to play a game of blindfold chess. Binet found that experience, imagination, and memories of abstract and concrete varieties were required in master chess.

[Tarnished]

Probably good short term visual memory helps. Mine is shit largely due to organic reasons.

http://www.chessmaniac.com/memory-and-chess/

"Short term visual memory " sound right. I usually memorize things in the form of patterns, and it got nothing to do with "short term visual memory", which I find very hard (and boring if it's a turn base game/ not real time) to do.
I think both strong Se and Si users can be good at this game. For N users, Maybe Ne suit this game better than Ni

[Jarno]

I doubt there is any type without some representative who plays chess.

Hello Abbie, maybe you like to know that Magnus Carlson a recent world champion is an LSE-TE according to me.

[consentingadult]

I was in a relationship with an American woman for about 5 years, and one day she said to me: "what I find remarkable about you, is that you're an high achiever, but your not competitive at all." And that is exactly the reason why I never learned to play chess. You would have to put a gun against my head in order to motivate me to learn it.

For the same reason, I usually go into sabotage mode whenever I have to participate in competitive team building games. My pathway to social success and relevance is found in cooperation.

[Lolita]

Hm, not sure if chess is a logical type domain. I suck at chess, a friend of mine is an ethical type and he's a good chess player (he's in a chess team, competes locally) and nope he's not Ni ego.

I consider chess similar to poker. The goal is the same: You’re not really playing a game, you’re trying to game your opponent. The issue is with playing chess is that it takes longer to get good at it so you’ll have to practice with the computer longer than on other humans. This makes it harder on ethical types so they may not do so well because they’ve got nothing to read off of. It seems that the most common fanbase of chess are logicals and poker has more ethicals. I mean, that’s why you see poker players hiding their eyes behind sunglasses I think poker is more fun because it’s a more interactive. I’m also good at calculating probabilities which is something doable for poker, whereas for chess, it’s literally an INFINITE combo of moves. Chess is harder to psychologically play your opponent, whereas with poker, it’s happening live. I think high dimensionality of values Se (SLE and SEE) and Te (LIE and LSE) are good at poker and high dimensionality of valued Ti (LII and LSI) and Ni (IEI and ILI) are good at chess.

[Djinn]

I am an EXTREMELY inconsistent chess player,, but I enjoy it quite a bit. I only play online casually and honestly have a strangely much better time against the computer than players.
My elo rating against players is like 900ish I think which is really bad, but I can consistently beat the computer set to 1600 elo rating and have even beat the computer set to 2650 before. It's fucking weird as shit, I know. There are reasons why I play like that, but nobody probably cares.


If I had to guess ad lib how each IE plays chess, then:

Si - Good at reading the integrity of a position and knows when it is being threatened. Knows when a position is undermined and can capitalize.
Se - able to see which pieces have higher or worse positional/situational value. Good at seeing who is winning and losing in a position
Ni - good at telling when to play defensive and when to play offensive based on overall position of the board. Probably has an idea of how one wants the overall position to develop
Ne - is able to spot the weakness and strengths in each player's positional development and play around that, sees more opportunities to catch the opponent by surprise or throw wrenches into their plans
Ti - Knows the skeleton of the game (i.e. how the pieces move and organize and shit) and can best determine the accuracy of a move. Potentially see holes in the opponent's understanding of the game and exploit that.
Te - Knows how to coordinate the pieces (all of them together if you're good), sees when a piece isn't coordinated well with the others, and knows how to correct or capitalize on this factor.
Fi - can see which playstyles and pieces the opponent prefers/is comfortable with and can exploit that. Maybe even able to trick opponent into thinking they are better or worse with some pieces or playstyles than they really are.
Fe - Notices how comfortable each player is with the moves and development of the game. Can potentially manipulate this factor by making intimidating moves and shit or making the opponent feel more comfortable with the position than they should.

You could probably put a big fat "???" at the end of each of those, or even argue my points, but I tried.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

I'm getting better and better at it but I'm still kinda new. I just started playing a few months ago. I thought it was a game that was very Te and anti-IEI like but I notice how quickly I learn and pick up patterns and strategies etc. It's still a game for Thinkers and not Feelers though so I doubt I am going to stick with it much.

@DeliMeat : I like that a lot. It makes sense to me cuz when I first started out the Te thing u said is what I had trouble with the most and what annoyed me the most. ((it was also easy for me to realize this was my main weakness)) I greatly improved against the computer I noticed and corrected my Te mistakes. I really like that, good job!