• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[Jungian Cognitive Functions] Chess Tactics and Type

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
I am a fan of chess, even though I'm not particularly masterful at it, but nonetheless, I have found some interesting patterns when playing certain types that effectively showcase their perceiving functions. The examples provided are all irrational types, with dominant perceiving functions.

We'll begin with Se.

The Opponent: ESTP

This game was particularly interesting and most revealing type-wise, as the ESTP focused primarily on circumstantial gains rather than ulterior motives (Se-Ni axis). He would actively take note of every place of every piece on the board, and would move to where pieces were instead of where they were going to be. For instance, I moved a knight at one point to a position where the next move would be a King-Rook fork (which means that I would put him in check and force him to give up his rook), and he immediately rebutted with a pawn-push, not seeing my next move but seeing where the knight was already. This creates a bit of a lag to the game, I would be planning out deceptive maneuvers that would allow me to gain material (to capture pieces) in the future while he would consistently be one step behind, moving pieces to allay current pains rather than future pains. However, despite this seeming disadvantage, they are exceptionally good at taking advantage of prime opportunities. Whereas I would be disseminating in my mind how to accomplish my plan, the ESTP would be aggressively sliding along the board and constantly laying down pressure on weak positions in my pawn structure and even robbing me of some pieces that I accidentally left hanging (undefended). They are constantly aware of the battlefield and can apply extreme pressure in the form of momentary gains, and while this ESTP did not actively do this in this particular game, they are very inclined to exchange pieces to free up board space to work with. I have lost games to Se dominants before where they apply so much pressure to my side of the board that I can't achieve my plan, effectively stunting me and allowing them to close in for the kill. Se users are very aggressive players that focus on momentary gains, and that affects them for better or worse.

Now for Ne,

The Opponent: ENFP

This game annoyed the living shit out of me, particularly because my opponent took forever in between moves (this is something I'll come back to, also, these games were all free of time-restrictions). The main feature I noticed in the strategy of the ENFP's play style was that they don't want to commit to one plan, they want to delay any sort of commitment to a plan until the last second (didn't see that one coming, did you?). This leads to an exceptionally careful playing of the board, with passive moves attempting to ensure that no possible route gets shut down. Whenever I would attempt to force an exchange (especially Queen exchange, which I prompted at least 5 times, people need to learn to not completely depend on the Queen), the ENFP would deliberate for an even longer period of time to see if there was any probable way to escape completely unscathed. Eventually, I forced a Queen exchange that couldn't be denied, and he still attempted to grasp at some unforeseen possible solution, a miracle even. Knowing that this is an ENFP and my friend, he decided to entertain me with his thought process (again, this game was all recreational) and his desperate attempt to find an escape route as if I could somehow provide an answer to an unsolvable question. He eventually took the exchange after I prodded some (there was no other move that would at least attempt to stabilize the material ratio). The ENFP did, however, present a magnificent front to almost all of my advances to the other side of the board, and could mobilize rather efficiently in response to any problem I created for him. Essentially, the Ne types seem to be good at damage control and crisis management, while falling short in commitment to a plan.

And Ni,

Analysis of my own style: INTJ

Over the many games I've played, I have come to an understanding of my own style of playing the board. My entire style centralizes around finding the most efficient way to ensure checkmate immediately, and immediately committing to that plan (juxtaposing the plan-juggling Ne dominants). I spear-head my plan all of the way under constantly changing conditions, making slight adjustments to some problem pieces that arise but ultimately sticking to the plan at all costs. In my game against the ESTP, for instance, I was somewhat lost, but then I realized a beautiful plan that could arise from the mobilization of both of my rooks to the other side that would provide mate in 4 swift moves that was virtually unstoppable if he did not see the moves' ulterior motive (me playing off of this particular ESTP's difficulty with long-range thinking and planning). Another thing to note from this too is the seeming character trait of Ni dominants that states "We know what to ignore and what to focus on." When I was preparing for this set-up, I completely disregarded the entire other half of the board as irrelevant, allowing the ESTP to gleefully capture all of the pieces he wanted on that side to entertain him and distract him. After I had mate in 1, he finally saw what I was doing and aptly resigned. However, the drawback to this planning lies when the plan turns out to be flawed, which then causes a panic mode that forces me to search for the next best available possibility, which is akin to a scramble in my mind. I can get so caught up in my plan that I overlook one, minute detail that completely disrupts the plan entirely (usually it's a knight I didn't account for). When this happens, I end up off-balanced, and the other player has the opportunity to swoop in for the kill.

I'll let you guys know when I play some decent Si-users, as the only one I have ever played is extremely new to chess and requires mentoring, but feel free to provide your own analyses or comments to this.
 

fghw

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
118
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Essentially, the Ne types seem to be good at damage control and crisis management, while falling short in commitment to a plan.

Sounds about right. My chess strategy is largely preventing possible attacks, seeing what damage I can get away with, watching for rogue pawns, and tending to my hierarchy of pieces. my weakness is checkmating. If a stalemate was considered a win, chess would be so much easier. The beginning of the game, in which there are no perceivable threats, is mainly spent making cool patterns until my opponent does something drastic.
 

Werebudgie

I want my account deleted
Joined
Jan 20, 2014
Messages
398
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6w5
Another thing to note from this too is the seeming character trait of Ni dominants that states "We know what to ignore and what to focus on." When I was preparing for this set-up, I completely disregarded the entire other half of the board as irrelevant, allowing the ESTP to gleefully capture all of the pieces he wanted on that side to entertain him and distract him. After I had mate in 1, he finally saw what I was doing and aptly resigned. However, the drawback to this planning lies when the plan turns out to be flawed, which then causes a panic mode that forces me to search for the next best available possibility, which is akin to a scramble in my mind. I can get so caught up in my plan that I overlook one, minute detail that completely disrupts the plan entirely (usually it's a knight I didn't account for). When this happens, I end up off-balanced, and the other player has the opportunity to swoop in for the kill.

I've never been into playing chess. I think the above may possibly get at why. I feel like there's a something about how I process information that would prevent me from doing whatever it is that people need in order to be good at the game. The whole Ni-dom "We know what to ignore and what to focus on" approach to possibilities (and what happens when that doesn't serve the game) .... hmm, that could be it.

Interesting.
 

fghw

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
118
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
As an Ne user I'm not nearly stupid/confident enough to disregard an entire half of the board based on a plan that might not work.

Also, from your post it seems like opposite functions (Se and Ni) never quite understand the other's strategy, leading to them playing two different games with neither quite superior to the other. I wonder how this works between Ne and Si.
 

Evo

Unapologetic being
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,160
MBTI Type
XNTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
From my experience, I learned that Se users go in with more of a plan than me :shock:

But this is because they have played 3x as much as I have, and they have successfully based their moves off of past experience from other players checkmating them. I don't have the desire or patience to memorize standard moves. They are excellent at that though.

I personally take a long time to move (if I'm not timed. Tee he he he) It's all part of the plan :coffee: Cause I hate to lose.

I get a plan in my head, but I'm really flexible with that plan. If a scenario comes up in which I need a new route...I revise my plan. Note that I don't usually drop the original plan though. However, at the same time, I don't like to invest energy into a plan as much as I used to for chess. I find it's more hindering than helpful for me. I would get so involved in my own plan that eventually I would not be able to recover if it was messed with. So I let that go.

I began learning mostly from Ne and Se types. So that may have something to do with it as well.

Also, when I was learning, I would try to model after my ex. He was INFJ (very good at chess too.) But he was never able to explain his thinking in a concrete enough way for me to really get all the context and internalize it as my own. So what I learned from him, is to just cover my ass. (he had worst case scenario Ni.)

And truthfully, as long as I have all my pieces covered, I can hang on long enough for a precentage of my plan to come to fruition usually.

And just a tid bit to add... I never step down from a piece for piece match. I usually intiate those. I like to narrow the pieces down significantly.

I like your descriptions btw. Keep it up!
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
As an Ne user I'm not nearly stupid/confident enough to disregard an entire half of the board based on a plan that might not work.

Also, from your post it seems like opposite functions (Se and Ni) never quite understand the other's strategy, leading to them playing two different games with neither quite superior to the other. I wonder how this works between Ne and Si.

Probably similar to Ni-Se's confusion, but I think the misunderstanding arises when there is a juxtaposition of inferior functions.

As for Si, I can hypothesize that they would be more rigid with openers (then again, I tend to start every game with virtually the same opener due to how effective it is, it's a variation of King's Indian) and much more careful really. From my game with my not-so-experienced in chess ISTJ friend, I can see that there is a sort of careful deliberation and a very passive style of play that is built to hold on to all of the pieces for dear life and keep each one properly defended. That, and they might be attracted to more orderly structures like the jagged pawn structure going across the board. If there was a way to define it, I'd probably say "Slow and Steady".
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
From my experience, I learned that Se users go in with more of a plan than me :shock:

But this is because they have played 3x as much as I have, and they have successfully based their moves off of past experience from other players checkmating them. I don't have the desire or patience to memorize standard moves. They are excellent at that though.

I personally take a long time to move (if I'm not timed. Tee he he he) It's all part of the plan :coffee: Cause I hate to lose.

I get a plan in my head, but I'm really flexible with that plan. If a scenario comes up in which I need a new route...I revise my plan. Note that I don't usually drop the original plan though. However, at the same time, I don't like to invest energy into a plan as much as I used to for chess. I find it's more hindering than helpful for me. I would get so involved in my own plan that eventually I would not be able to recover if it was messed with. So I let that go.

I began learning mostly from Ne and Se types. So that may have something to do with it as well.

Also, when I was learning, I would try to model after my ex. He was INFJ (very good at chess too.) But he was never able to explain his thinking in a concrete enough way for me to really get all the context and internalize it as my own. So what I learned from him, is to just cover my ass. (he had worst case scenario Ni.)

And truthfully, as long as I have all my pieces covered, I can hang on long enough for a precentage of my plan to come to fruition usually.

And just a tid bit to add... I never step down from a piece for piece match. I usually intiate those. I like to narrow the pieces down significantly.

I like your descriptions btw. Keep it up!

Were your Se user opponents ISTPs, perchance? I find that they sort of mimic my play-style but at the same time make the plan subordinate to the actual happenings on the board; tert. Ni at work, I guess.

I need to play some judging types and Si types soon so I can figure them out. Already have ideas for Te-dominant play-styles.
 

fghw

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
118
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Interesting.
I notice a trend in both your descriptions and life that se/ni users are primarily offensive while ne/si users are primarily defensive. I'm too tired right now to refine this theory, but it's interesting that the way one plays chess can be a reflection of their personality.
 

fghw

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
118
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
I need to play some judging types and Si types soon so I can figure them out. Already have ideas for Te-dominant play-styles.

There is not much of a feeling factor in chess so I'm not sure how it works with them, but I assume that Te plans are just more coherent than Ti plans.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
There is not much of a feeling factor in chess so I'm not sure how it works with them, but I assume that Te plans are just more coherent than Ti plans.

Te plans are more focused on synthesizing results. For instance, if I see an open file and I have a rook, I immediately capitalize on that to further my strategic advantage. I hypothesize from when I played my ISTP friend a long time ago that Ti plans are more focused on making sure all of the moving parts are precisely where they need to be (everyone sets-up for moves, but I feel as though Ti builds a frame to where they want every piece in exactly one position). Whereas Te and even Se are more concerned about producing results and capitalizing on opportunities.

I don't know what the difference might entail from Te vs Fe and Ti vs Fi, but I don't think it would be that radical really.

Also, I think Te relies more on statistical analysis as well. I always take note of who has the material advantage and my probability of still winning the game after an exchange of pieces, especially when I'm nearing the end-game.
 

fghw

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
118
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
On a semi-unrelated note, is it possible that an F type can effectively mimic its T counterpart (and vice versa)? I have noticed that I can become INFP-like when the situation calls for it, but never quite taking it seriously. Perhaps this is how feeling types play chess.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
On a semi-unrelated note, is it possible that an F type can effectively mimic its T counterpart (and vice versa)? I have noticed that I can become INFP-like when the situation calls for it, but never quite taking it seriously. Perhaps this is how feeling types play chess.

I can't see why not. I don't think specific Judging functions really matter as much as specific Perceiving functions do in chess, it probably could just be classified as Je and Ji styles.
 

Evo

Unapologetic being
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,160
MBTI Type
XNTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Were your Se user opponents ISTPs, perchance? I find that they sort of mimic my play-style but at the same time make the plan subordinate to the actual happenings on the board; tert. Ni at work, I guess.

I need to play some judging types and Si types soon so I can figure them out. Already have ideas for Te-dominant play-styles.

I have played ISFP's and ESFP's actually.

The ISFP's were always the ones to memorize standard moves (Just like they memorize jokes...but can't remember who's birthday it is lol.) I'm inclined to believe that Fi likes catagories just at much as Ti.

I have played an ISFJ. He is pretty decent. He's better than me honestly. And this is just because, again...he has an affinity for details in which I just can't be bothered with.

The ISFJ seems to have a plan everytime though. His plans are not out of thin air though. He uses his Si which is full of past experience to formulate a plan. I believe he goes about gathering details as he plays though. It's not like Ni, where in the beginning you have the whole picture and it's just a matter of executing the plan. No, his Si will use every little detail along the way all to compile into a materpeice at the end. He has a skeleton for a plan in the beginning, and will systematically flesh that plan out as he goes. His style is very gradual and accumulating
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
I have played ISFP's and ESFP's actually.

The ISFP's were always the ones to memorize standard moves (Just like they memorize jokes...but can't remember who's birthday it is lol.) I'm inclined to believe that Fi likes catagories just at much as Ti.

I have played an ISFJ. He is pretty decent. He's better than me honestly. And this is just because again...he has an affinity for details in which I just can't be bothered with.

The ISFJ seems to have a plan everytime though. His plans are not out of thin air though. He uses his Si which is full of past experience to formulate a plan. I believe he goes about gathering details as he plays though. It's not like Ni, where in the beginning you have the whole picture and it's just a matter of executing the plan. No, his Si will use every little detail along the way all to compile into a materpeice at the end. He has a skeleton for a plan in the beginning, and will sytematically flesh that plan out. His style is very gradual and accumulating

Yeah, I don't really think F or T preference matters at all really for chess.
 

Evo

Unapologetic being
Joined
Jul 1, 2011
Messages
3,160
MBTI Type
XNTJ
Enneagram
1w9
Instinctual Variant
sp/sx
Whereas Te and even Se are more concerned about producing results and capitalizing on opportunities.

Yea, this is exactly what I want out of a game. lol

I don't know what the difference might entail from Te vs Fe and Ti vs Fi, but I don't think it would be that radical really.

IMO both Je functions seem to have commonalities more so than not. Just as the Ji types do. The logic behind their decisions seems to be very similar.

Also, I think Te relies more on statistical analysis as well. I always take note of who has the material advantage and my probability of still winning the game after an exchange of pieces, especially when I'm nearing the end-game.

Yes, I do this too. That's one of the reasons I don't shy away from a piece for piece play.
 

Odi et Amo

To here knows when...
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
143
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
My brother, as an ESTJ, excels at his tactical style. He's very conscious of it - he wants to sit your ass down and grab material, fast. He comes roaring out of the gate and has a calculating, brutalist style that I would normally expect out of an Se user. His biggest failing is not so much lack of foresight as it is inflexibility, so our matches are usually won by the halfway point in material taken.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
My brother, as an ESTJ, excels at his tactical style. He's very conscious of it - he wants to sit your ass down and grab material, fast. He comes roaring out of the gate and has a calculating, brutalist style that I would normally expect out of an Se user. His biggest failing is not so much lack of foresight as it is inflexibility, so our matches are usually won by the halfway point in material taken.

Probably due to dominant Te. There is a need for control and domination with that function in strategy.

I find that in chess, the dominant function provides a bit of character to their playing style

Ni = finesse (methodical)
Ne = acrobatics (dancing around the board)
Se = aggressive (warrior-like)
Si = (assuming to be) scrutiny

Je = controlling/domination
Ji = systematizing (harder to pin as well)
 
Last edited:

fghw

New member
Joined
Dec 10, 2012
Messages
118
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
Probably due to dominant Te. There is a need for control and domination with that function in strategy.

I find that in chess, the dominant function provides a bit of character to their playing style

Ni = finesse (methodical)
Ne = acrobatics (dancing around the board)
Se = aggressive (warrior-like)
Si = (assuming to be) scrutiny

Je = controlling/domination
Ji = systematizing (harder to pin as well)

This actually works as a general model for thinking types in problem solving situations.

INTJ=controlling with finesse
ENTJ=(insert adjective form of finesse) domination
INTP=acrobatic systematizing
ENTP=systematic acrobatics
ISTP=aggressive systematizing
ESTP=systematic aggression
ISTJ=controlling with scrutiny
ESTJ=(insert adjective form of scrutiny) domination
 

Odi et Amo

To here knows when...
Joined
Dec 18, 2013
Messages
143
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Probably due to dominant Te. There is a need for control and domination with that function in strategy.

I find that in chess, the dominant function provides a bit of character to their playing style

Ni = finesse (methodical)
Ne = acrobatics (dancing around the board)
Se = aggressive (warrior-like)
Si = (assuming to be) scrutiny

Je = controlling/domination
Ji = systematizing (harder to pin as well)
I agree with all of this. Maybe, though, types with dominant perceiving functions have an easier time switching between Ji & Je? I for one feel as though I play chess with an Ni/Ti axis specifically. I play fluid, defensive, positional chess.
 

Alea_iacta_est

New member
Joined
Dec 3, 2013
Messages
1,834
I agree with all of this. Maybe, though, types with dominant perceiving functions have an easier time switching between Ji & Je? I for one feel as though I play chess with an Ni/Ti axis specifically. I play fluid, defensive, positional chess.

It is certainly plausible, there is no evidence to discount that. The dominant function usually is refined by the tertiary function (in the specific case of Pi-Ji). Specifically with Ni-Ti, it would be sort of like "Does this possibility (convergent) make logical sense to me?"

I also think shapes would adequately represent the different playing styles as well.

Ni cuts across the board sharply and directly like the hypotenuse of a right triangle (example utilized to illustrate the calculative nature of its plan)

Ne converges across the board like a contracting oval, slowly closing the distance until finally a possibility is chosen. (Akin to a tightening of the noose, I guess)

Se ravages the board with a movement like a coordinate planes' axes (much like the rook in the game itself, really)

Si (might) set a strict perimeter and border that expands to eventually encompass the opponent like the rigidity of a rectangle.

Je works like a stair-case, making strategic gains in an attempt to control the board and prevent movement anywhere but the place the staircase permits, which in this case, would be up.

Ji (possibly) works like a scatter plot, recognizing the individual points and seeing how they work in tandem with one another to figure out each points' purpose in the long run.
 
Top