# Thread: Chess Tactics and Type

1. Originally Posted by Alea_iacta_est
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.
That's why well-played Ne chess seems so fluent and graceful! That's a wonderful image.

Also why Ni/Te in tandem is such a potent axis for abstract iteration - Ni derives convergent patterns, Te communicates them clearly, objectively, and externally.

2. People tend to not know what the hell to do if their opponent doesn't develop their pieces and try to control the center. I totally subvert that on people who know to follow that 'protocol' but seem as though they wouldn't know how to counter oddball styles--those who assume that "optimal" play is the only way to go and are simply just used to it.

Get a lil' bit of tempo going after that, and you can revert to normal tactics while the other person tries to recover.

If they seem like they know what they're doing, then I can't risk that.

3. All types can master Chess through their personal functions, ie. an ISFP through Se and Ni, an ISTP through Se and Ti, but it will generally come easier for the Te dom, and I say generally. Extroverted Logic, paired with tertiary Extroverted Sensation or Extroverted Intuition, readily employ two programs of relevance for external dynamics, and the secondary function of Si or Ni will be somewhat helpful for the internalization of imagery, though it is impossible to draw a cognition intended for introversion directly into the dynamic realm.

Here's a visualization of Te dom in action with Se or Ne tertiary:

Logical checks and arithmetic in green and red represent Te's transitory calculations, white and black shadows and arrows are Se's potential dynamics (there should be a few more especially if we're talking Se dom), and gold pieces are the big-picture situational efforts and opportunities spotted by Ne.

4. Here's my typical style:

• Throw the regular game of chess into the garbage can and play Chess960 instead. Starting positions are randomized (with some rules/restrictions). I have never been patient enough to memorize opening strategies.
• If I have to play a regular game, then I'll wing the opening based upon the few standard openers that I know. "The unexpected" can work at times, but standard openings have a way of having an answer for everything.
• Try to plan ahead as much as possible with one strategy, but also 2-3 with a tactical contingency plan or two. I virtually never have one single reason for taking any given move, in either chess or billiards. I'm prone to missing something when scanning the board ("Wait, he had a rook on d3? Shit!"), and contingencies help.
• I do, however, usually assume that my opponent is locked into a single strategy/tactic at some given moment unless forced to diverge. More often than not a good assumption. When it's not the right assumption and I act upon it, I may very well find myself in damage control mode. But again, contingencies.

5. I never played enough to learn about particular techniques. Usually I started by mimicking the style of my opponent and then waited for the right moment to make unexpected move and mess with their plans.

6. i play one of two ways...

1. i plan ahead, watching my opponent for weakness and reacting when it is opportune... i am frustratingly slow, as i look as many moves ahead as i can... i set up attacks on several fronts at once (most often disguised as defense), and concentrate on trying to create advantage in numbers by "safely" removing my opponents pieces, and trading "lesser" positions/pieces when i can...

2. i react, and do what will create the most interesting scenario... sometimes i create a disadvantage for myself, and then go to my first method... most often i play this way when i don't feel the need to impress someone... for some reason i think of chess as a way to show off at times, though i haven't played enough of it to be impressive...

7. I could never really be bothered to learn standard openings as well...
Mostly I attempt a scholar's mate (it's the only thing I know and it's hilarious how often that one has worked so far) or something similar in the beginning, then... whatever seems to make sense at the moment. I usually don't plan more than three or four moves in advance, a girl has to stay flexible. Often enough I'll change plans every other turn, so... there's no use to plan in advance. People have said my style is pretty annoying^^ I took that as a compliment.
Also I don't really play to win.
Well, I try. But fun and a beautiful game >>> winning.

Chess960 sounds great! I want to try that

I also like bughouse chess a lot.

8. Originally Posted by There
I also like bughouse chess a lot.
Haven't played this variant, but after googling looks interesting.

9. I have a lot of trophies and stuff from when I was a teenager. Was the best guy for a while. However to get really good at this you have to study techniques, strategy, games, and memorize openings. I simply thought it was too boring. I'm not sure how much type influences chess playing style to be honest. I believe I was good because I could think farther ahead than other players while being extremely focused, consistent and rarely making a mistake. I tend to be creative and that helped I'm sure as well. What happened though is the Ti types who did study and analyzed things to death got better and I stagnated. I also wasn't sleeping enough and started making mistakes. Then I went to college and girls became the important thing so I dropped it completely.I never play anymore.

#### 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