Chess

[Splittet]

As of late, I have gained considerable interest for chess. The reason is my obsession with genius, which has lead me to become a huge fan of Norwegian chess prodigy Magnus Carlsen (I am Norwegian).

Anyhow, does anyone here play or watch chess? Are you any good? How would you characterize your style? Does it fit with your type? What types do you think would be best suited for chess? What do you think about the personality type of some of the leading chess players in the world?

I am mostly into watching, but I am trying to improve my game. I am at a level where I beat people who just plays once in a while fairly easy. I feel like a quite positional player, but at the moment I am trying to improve my tactics, so that I among other things can become a more accomplished and creative attacker. Also it makes playing a lot more fun, because you see a lot more, and the chessboard comes alive. I am prone to blunders. I am best at playing rapid, but hate blitz, it’s going too fast, and I even lose to my inexperienced brother, which is very annoying! I have been practising a lot in ChessMaster 10, but I am trying to gain more experience against human opposition, because it’s quite different to play against.

I think the INTP and INTJ types probably would be suited for chess, but it has quite a lot to do with intelligence. I don’t know about the whole N/S thing. Chess is often highly theoretical though, and pattern recognition is also very important. Positional play is a lot about playing by certain principles, which is a bit Ti in nature. The creativity most often lies in the tactics.

As for famous chess players, I am pretty certain the mad Bobby Fischer was an INTJ. I think Magnus Carlsen is maybe a bit INTP-ish, but he could also be INTJ. Definitely IxTx, at least. I feel among other things, he is maybe too modest to be INTJ. Garry Kasparov is an E, I think, possibly ENTP.

 

[LucrativeSid]

I don't play that often so I don't have very much experience. I do have major problems that I'm trying to fix. I'm too aggressive and I move too quickly. You know, the kind of move where you finish it, and then you're like "Oh shit!" and they kill your queen. Yes, I move way too quickly. And I make simple mistakes that I know I could have avoided if I would have just looked at the position of the enemy bishop. I get an idea and before I know it, I've already made the move.

I rock at improvising, but chess is not something you can improvise. Therefore, I suck at chess until I learn some self control. And this same problem applies to my whole life in many ways!

And then I also wonder if playing chess is worth any time, and if I'd be better off to practice something else that would be more meaningful to me.

 

[Kiddo]

When I first learned as a kid I gave some adults a run for their money. I used to read books about it and play all the time online. But I completely lost interest after I discovered Texas Hold'em.

As far as how I played, it was sort of a long term strategy thing. I would look for a weakness in how my opponent played and capitalize on that the next time I played them. Consequently, I hardly ever won the first game.

 

[Sandy]

I enjoy playing chess -- my INTP son is much better at it than I am. He's always 4-5 steps ahead of me. (smarty-pants!)

 

[Usehername]

my otherwise extremely intelligent INTP friend sucks at chess. i think it's because he overestimates the intelligence of his opponents, and expects them to make certain moves which he counters for, but they never do.

 

[ptgatsby]

I use to play, semi-competitively. Didn't like the required amount of memorisation of openings and such so I didn't continue to play competitively. It has been a long long time since I've played - I got stomped the last time I played against the computer, so I've fallen wayyy down. But if I do have time to play something, it's go and not chess.

 

[The_Liquid_Laser]

I don't really consider myself much of a chess player (I prefer games with a random element), but from my experience INTJ and ENTJ make the best chess players. I'm not really that good, but I can give most INTP's a run for their money (unless they are exceptionally practiced). NTJ's tend to smoke me fairly thoroughly. The best chess player I've known was an ENTJ. I'm pretty sure the Ni-Te combo is the best pairing for playing chess.

 

[ygolo]

I got into chess about a year and a half ago (so I am very much a beginner). It is fascinating. I actually went up to watch the Western States Chess Open in Reno, Nevada recently. (Yes--Just to watch. I may play the next one--my first tournament if I do play).

I play mainly blitz (5 min. each side) chess with friends--Mainly with a retired couple who plays an awful lot. I don't like playing online. It doesn't have the same feel.

It's an interesting pass-time in that you will often have 7 y.o's and 70 year olds with about the same skill level despite the 70 y.o. having considerably more chess knowledge.

My main fascination with chess is how people improve at it. I don't have a lot of leisure time, but I am convinced there are strategies for improvement that are better than others. Thoughts on follow later.

I play the same people over and over again, and it seems like there are certain people that used to beat me consistently that no longer beat me all the time. In fact, I tend to beat the retired lady more often than not now.

Here is my take so far on how to improve the fast (as a beginner w/ little time to devote to improving).

1) Tactics. When first learning, it is all about tactics. Forget openings, forget strategy, forget end-games, and whatever else. Small spacial advantages, having the two bishops, having better pawn structure, or even an extra passed pawn means little when you get mated through some combination. The most important types of tactics are, of-course, the mating techniques (because you win once done), but winning material is vital to keep from becoming a "mindless king-hunter"

2) Very basic opening principles, to keep you from doing stupid things against slightly better players. Sticking with king pawn openings to start, controlling central squares, keeping up with development, slight awareness of good vs. bad bishops, etc. And of course, avoid traps and tricks by being aware of tactics.

3) Learn the basic "overpowered" end-games. You need to be able to mate almost automatically with a K-R or K-Q vs. K. I would say K-B-B vs. K too. Learn the principles of pawn and rook-pawn end-games. And here again, there are a lot of pawn and rook pawn tactics to consider.

4) Learn an anti-Sicilian. Seems like everyone wants to play the Sicilian, despite it having a huge opening book, and being immensely complicated. Its fun to pull out an anti-Sicilian and watch your opponent squirm (unless they really are Sicilian players, in which case you may be screwed). This is where you can practice your mating techniques against weaker players.

5) This last part is speculative, since I've just started this. Choose a solid, positional openings to learn (since most players I meet will still have better tactical skills than me). I picked the Caro-Kann, and the Slav as black (and hopeful transpositions into these for other white openings), and Queen's Gambit as white. I haven't studied much, since I wanted to get burned a lot before I started delving into the books (besides chess is my leisure time, I don't want to spend too much of it studying).

Anyway, taking up an ancient game for leisure is certainly fun, I got a bit carried away.

Finally, to answer your questions.

I am not very good (by my estimation) but I win against about 3/4 of my regular opponents more than half the time. The other 1/4 of my opponents (who I play a lot more often) beat me more than 70% of the time. I pretty much always beat the people who know the rules and play it like just another game, like checkers (IOW, I beat most people who are not into chess).

Still, I would say that INTJs are the most naturally good at chess. But I would not be surprised if ISTPs are good at chess also, if they picked it up as something they would spend a lot of time doing (though I don't see too many SPs at the chess club, there are plenty at the coffee houses who like to play).

Regular chess requires focus, concentration, and study. Imagination is a great asset at higher levels. But I would say that a lot of it is just straight-forward analysis (of the pattern recognition and calculation type).

xNTPs, I think, would blunder too often, and would want to try their moves out on the board. But when playing competitively, these impulses can be temporarily put aside.

 

[ygolo]

What openings do people play?

What is your general initial game plan as black and as white? How has that changed as you learned more?

I am curious to see if there is any connection between personality and chess style.

 

[Splittet]

Once upon a time I used to open with d4 as white, now I open with e4. Anyhow it's a more tactical opening, and tactics is the path to greatness, so that's what I need to study, not positional play.

Against e4 I used to just play the Sicilian, playing the Najdorf variation, but lately I have adopted 1...g6 and 2...Bg7, which can be played against d4 also. It gives me a solid position, but I feel it's a bit easy to play against. Sicilian on the other hand is very sharp, so it's probably very good for my chess skills. Against d4 I just play Indian defence, preferably getting into a Nimzo-Indian or Queen's Indian. Perhaps I should try the King's Indian? I kind of love fianchettos.

What is my plan? To win ... I just try to develop my pieces, be patient, make natural moves, and punish my opponent's mistakes. A more detailed plan depends on the position.

All of this has changed since I have learned more. I used to play according to just some basic classical principles, but now I have memorized a few openings, and I basically know what I play against most openings. I now play the opening a lot faster.

 

[ygolo]

As black, I play 1...c6, 2...d5 for almost everything (for 1.d4, I play 1...d5, 2...c6).

This almost always transposes into a Caro-Kann or a Slav.

1) I generally aim to lock up the center till I finish development. There are some notable exceptions, where I can actually take initiative or have to fend off rather nasty attacks on my king. One variation leads to an exchange of Queens very early in the game, where I end up loosing castling but have a more central king in a near end-game situation.

2a) Once developed (castled king side), start a minority attack on the queen-side, while trading down pieces and creating pawn weaknesses.

2b) Once developed (castled king side or queen side), launch an attack to win decisive material or a mate on the king side. Usually requires white to play passively, launch a premature attack, or just make a tactical blunder.

As white, unless black gives me the ideal center (which your opening would), I play 1. d6 2. c6. If I have the opportunity, I will play 1.d6 2.e6 instead.

After 1...d5, this is the Queen's Gambit. Most other black responses I've seen transposes later on the a version of Queen's Gambit declined (slav or semi-slav usually).

I had stock responses for annoyances like the Benko Gambit, and Albin Counter-Gambit also (though I face them so little, I have forgotten them).

1) The main plan is to control the center, take-up space and limit black's options, till (s)he is forced to make a blunder, or (s)he gives me enough tempo to either get a second queen or catch the king in a vice grip.

2) If black manges to destroy my center (which right now seems much easier than I would have anticipated) I have a Q-B-B-N-N combo. in store to try to mate the king. As the saying goes "wang the h-pawn, trade off the bishop, and mate the sucker"

 

[Splittet]

That's some rather clearly formulated plans, and it sounds like you would beat the hell out of me. It's interesting how your play is rather positional. I find the positional part of the game to be very Ti in nature, it's about applying principles. I think that's something INTPs would excel at, while I guess you use your Ne to explore tactical possibilities. In comparison, how does it work for INTJs? I guess I haven't fully figured out the tactical bit. I just look at the board for ideas, and I suck to such a degree, I don't get one at all as often as I like. As I get better at this, I imagine playing will get more and more enjoyable. I am very much into playing moves that look natural. If I don't see any concrete tactical dangers or possibilities, I will just play a developing move that feels good. Maybe that is my intuition at play. It helps having watched a lot of grandmaster games live, mostly those of Carlsen. I do apply principles, but in an unstructured way. I prefer to feel them, rather than to think them cold hard, which I guess is the Ti way. But that's kind of my way, thinking minimal in terms of words. Due to Te, my guess is INTJs would play more pragmatic than Ti players. I think the currant world champion, Anand, must have the Ni+Te combo, I don't know if he is I or E though. I actually heard him say he is an intuitive player, and he is also known as a pragmatic player. It's funny how he always begins his answers with "well".

 

[ygolo]

My main game plan is positional, and I advance to it slowly. However, I am cautious not to miss tactical opportunities for either side.

I look for "markers" for tactical opportunities. An unprotected king, a hanging piece, two pieces on a "circle" the radius of a knight's reach, two pieces on a diagonal, a rank, or a file. Pins, and "cramped" pieces are more complex markers. I build up more complex markers for seeing deeper combinations (smothered mate, for example).

One of my INTJ friends (who beats me more often than not) does very little of this. But he calculates incredibly accurately (still, he is human and makes mistakes). Usually, I have to think deeper than him to win (based on having a store of more complex patterns). Since he always carefully examines every option at each tactical position (he calculates wide, which is better than calculating deep), it is rare to exploit a blunder of his when we are both aware that we are in a sharp, tactical position. I have to start my combination before he is aware that it's time to calculate, or he will avoid the situation, or bring in reinforcements. If I try to simply out-calculate him, I get myself in trouble.

I think xNTJ do have a more purely visual and less of a "modeled"/verbal component to their thinking than xNTPs do. So there are fewer transitions between the Verbal and Visual modes (leading to fewer mistakes, w/o the aid of "checksums").

My direct calculation skills are rather week. I have a tendency to want to think too many moves ahead, and/or think it is only necessary to calculate when in forcing situations. I have to rely on "proven pattern" recognition to accomplish my tactical objectives.

When my Ne is weak, I get demolished. When it is strong I beat (and get a lot of praise) from much stronger and more experience players.

The way to beat me, is to get me into unfamiliar positions, where following the usual rules of thumb in chess would be ill-advised. Here I am forced to calculate directly.

Even here, I may be able to do well, if it is a highly "constrained" situation. IOW, in some situations that are very sharp, there are certain things I need to make sure happen/don't happen, and I look for a move that makes only the desired things happen.

This confuses people, in that, in these situations, I've been told I play like a Master. But then in less constrained, but still very sharp situations, I make very stupid mistakes.

In tactical situations, my thought process is as follows.

1) Scan for threats and opportunities (based on my pattern store).
2) Model/prioritize tactical objectives based on threats and opportunities (keeping in mind the overall game plan)
3) Think of ideas based on modeled tactical objectives
4) Evaluate based on expected results of exploiting opportunities, providing prophylaxis for threats, etc.
5) Repeat 3/4 till satisfied.
6) If more complex calculation is needed, calculate outcome.
7) Re-evaluate outcome. Repeat 4-6 till satisfied.
8) Make move.

Under time constraints, or out of habit, I often skip 6-7. For me, 1 and 2 are still weak, but with more experience, it should make 6-7 less necessary.

For xNTJs I recommend, Imagination in Chess. It seems like it would be useful for Ni-Te style players earlier than for Ti-Ne style players. It is till well above my head. I don't have an USCF rating, but based on who I can regularly beat at the club, I think I am in the 1300-1400 range. I think this book would become useful for me when I get to the 1500-1600 range. But for INTJs, it may be good even for beginners.

Experienced ENTPs usually beat me, because they seem to use the pattern recognition style also, but are faster at it. However, I seem to be able to model/prioritize objectives better, so I often have a pawn that can promote if I survive a middle game and tactical parts of the end games against ENTPs.

 

[Hypomanic]

My ENTJ mom and I played last night. I recieved a chess set for my birthday gift and I love it! I'm going to play often.. as a family tradition. Of course, my mom won me on my first game though. I think ENTJ's and INTJ's are more naturally inclinced to join chess club.. my mom was on chess club during college anyway. I think chess is appealing to iNtuitive Thinkers.

 

[sriv]

I am not very great at chess because I do not have experience, but here is my style anyway.

I usually follow conventional opening e4 when white.
As black, I use conventional counter d5 for pawn movements. I develop my knights very early game, but I am not very good at using them. My openings often suck, because everything is too cluttered. In my midgame, my pawn structures are weak, but my bishops are good. In endgame, I shine. The overall strategy is aggressive. I often get trade knights and pawns when favorable.

 

[Nocapszy]

I don't move anything except my knights. Ever. It's unnerving to my opponent.

That's actually my style for a great number of games. I play in a highly unusual way. The opposition is confused, or spends too much time trying to figure out what the hell I'm setting up for (usually nothing... I just take advantage of whatever opportunities I'm given) and lose track of the rest of the game.

I more play my enemy than the game. Psychological sparring.

 

[sriv]

The wise opponent never underestimates his opponent. You will lose to anyone who actually knows what they are doing simply by losing tempo.

 

[mippus]

Anyhow, does anyone here play or watch chess? Are you any good? How would you characterize your style? Does it fit with your type? What types do you think would be best suited for chess? What do you think about the personality type of some of the leading chess players in the world?

Be careful, chess, like bridge, can turn into a lifelong addiction (but your family history may already have told you that). But with in inspirator like Carlsen, it must be very hard to resist.
I am not that strong myself, rated around 1850. Highly positional, as a result of some fairly dogmatic thinking. I play a lot of profilax doing what I can to control the position and reduce the possibility of tactical jokes. I actually have no idea wether that fits my INTP profile, I'd say it is more of an INTJ-style. As to typical types: I'd say INT, but I have met some masterclass ISTJ's as well...
My best advice on improvement: play as much as you can with players rated 100-150 above you and take time to analyse the game together. The importance of books is highly overrated for minus 2200 players, I think. Have some basic knowledge of opening, tactics and endgames and start playing, you'll learn the rest quickly over the board.
Good luck and enjoy!

 

[Badlands]

Chess is definitely an NT game; nearly all the champions I bet are Rationals of some sort. While I could easily conquer my INFJ sister, let alone my ENFJ mother, I've only beat my INTP dad a couple of times. I think the main difference between NTJs and NTPs is that NTJs tend to have a definite plan for how they're going to move in, NTPs construct "piece systems" that keep an eye out for eachother. In general, this means NTJs can more easily be defeated by unorthodox playing methods that they don't expect, while NTPs often suffer from a lack of a tentative goal when it comes to offense and can end up not taking some valuable opportunities.

 

[mippus]

The "piece system" explanation is new to me, but it describes quite well what I do. Thanks Badlands...