User Tag List

123 Last

Results 1 to 10 of 31

  1. #1
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default Chess Tactics and Type

    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.
    Likes erg, Xena liked this post

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    119

    Default

    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.

  3. #3
    I want my account deleted
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    MBTI
    INFJ
    Enneagram
    6w5
    Posts
    401

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    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.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    119

    Default

    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.

  5. #5
    Unapologetic being Evolving Transparency's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    ESI Fi
    Posts
    3,182

    Default

    From my experience, I learned that Se users go in with more of a plan than me

    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 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!
    "Once the game is over, the Pawn and the King go back into the same box"

    Freedom isn't free.
    "Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." ~ Orwell
    I'm that person that embodies pretty much everything that you hate. Might as well get used to it.
    Unapologetically bonding in an uninhibited, propelled manner
    10w12

  6. #6
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fghw View Post
    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".

  7. #7
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Urarienev View Post
    From my experience, I learned that Se users go in with more of a plan than me

    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 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.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    119

    Default

    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.

  9. #9
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w6
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est View Post
    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.

  10. #10
    Senior Member Alea_iacta_est's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    1,838

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by fghw View Post
    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.

Similar Threads

  1. Time and Type (S/N)
    By rivercrow in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 32
    Last Post: 06-18-2007, 01:08 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO