Grandmasters of Chess, INTPs?

[Conan]

What type do you suppose they tend to be?

Im sure theyre some sort of NT but was wondering if any certain type would be best suited to the game.

I def think they could be INTP, with their proclivity for analysis and logic, and ability to concentrate, but one thing I notice is that I sometimes find thinking about tactics in chess annoying and would much rather focus on strategy and wondered if this trait may give INTJs an advantage.

[joft]

I used to beat my INTJ friend at chess all the time. one time we were playing a game and it was his move and he was sitting there thinking and suddenly he said "AHA! I see what your strategy is!" and I said "Really? That's funny because I don't have one" and it was funny but true

[Dumpy]

High-level chess takes a LOT of study, memorization, and preparation. You have to have a superb memory and be able to recall positions form one of 100,000 games that are locked in your memory. So-called "opening theory" can run 30 moves deep; end-game theory is even more developed. It is a shame, but that is what chess has become. For that reason, I suspect that INTPs do not make for too many grandmasters; we tend to give up on something once we reach a certain level of competence. My own problem is that I have studied, but I have a hard time retaining what I learn--it is all detail, again, what we are not too good at.

I remember my second game of tournament chess--I really had no idea what I was doing; I had never studied anything. I was playing a mid-level player (ranked around 1600), and after squirming out of one mess after another, I saw a quick little five-move combo that would net me his rook. Of course, I didn't trust my own judgment--how could a player ranked 1600 not see something that obvious?--and didn't play it. Eventually I lost. The next day, the player bounded up to me, and said, excitedly, did I know I could have taken his rook at the critical point? Apparently that evening he went over the game with a grandmaster friend of his, who pointed it out (he admitted he didn't see it himself). Grrr. And so went my chess career.

Now, there is a variation of chess that is being promoted by Bobby Fischer (he claims to have invented it, but that idea is stupid) whereby the pieces in the back row are randomly shuffled prior to the game, subject to a few general rules (for instance, you have to have opposite-colored bishops). Now, THAT would be better for INTPs--less reliance on study and memorization.

[Conan]

yeah i can totally see that, i just got the game chessmaster 10th edition and was going through the lessons, however i found myself just wanting to have been exposed to the general concepts with the idea that ill be able to wing applying them during the games, where as i would see an intj rigorously studying and memorizing the details of the lessons nad applying them with precision in a game

[ApeTheDog]

Bobby Fisher is an INTP, though.

I suspect this memorisation comes naturally when we are passionate about something. When I used to program things, I learned all the commands just because I used them, and needed them to do what I enjoyed.

I think with chess theory, it's the same, really. If an INTP really enjoys playing chess, he'll also enjoy learning chess theory, as it all ties in and enables him to become even better - and have even more fun.

I mean, Bobby Fisher did it, yeah? And he was a kid - he was just having fun all the time. He loved the game. I think once you have that down, all the theory will come from that.

You do not want to know how much I practiced shooting the railgun, and rocket jumping, and how many damn useless replays of better players, I watched when I wanted to become really good at playing quake 2. I was better than most people who had a graphics card playing in 320x240 resolution at a really low framerate. And it was not a labour at all (nor was it, of course, at all something to be proud of) - rather it just happened because I had my eyes set on a goal, and travelling towards that goal was simply fun.

[Conan]

how did you know bobby fischer was an INTP? i believe you, im just curious...

i def see an intp with the potential for greatness in chess, a guy brought a chess set in at work and its made me actually practice and study to get better and the more i learn the more i find there is to learn, and the fact that it is a much more complex system than it first seems and that it can be analyzed and better understood with work yet is still impossible to fully master has made it my new obsession of the moment

[ApeTheDog]

Well I'm not sure, but I read it all over the internet. I once saw a fragment of him on the tv - the one where he was commenting on moving from japan to some scandinavian country - in which he said some things that I could have been saying myself. I really felt the guy and understood him - even though he's also a bit insane.

Here are some sites that type him as intp. Take it for what it's worth. I figure, he has to be something - and i don't picture him as an intj by any means. Not the way he looks and talks and acts.

http://www.uniphiz.com/digital_physiognomy/personality-types.htm
http://www.angelfire.com/nt/DemonicJihad/MBTICelebs.html

[Dumpy]

I suppose. The top-level chess players study 8-10 hours a day, every day. In a sense, it is easier for a kid to get good than an adult--they have less to preoccupy and distract them.

I recognize that one of the things that held me back in chess was my fear that I was digressing from "theory," especially in the opening, and that I had not enough faith in my own intuition. That was before I learned I was an INTP and what it means, though.

A great chess book is "How to Reassess Your Chess," by Jeremy Silman. It expresses a lot of basic principles, many similar to those described in hard-to-read chess books like Nimzovich's "Chess Praxis and Kotov's "Think Like a Grandmaster." Those latter two are impossible to get through.

[Hexchild]

I suck at chess. I always end up making a stupid move at one point or other. On the other hand, I'm way better at Othello.

A friend of mine (I think he's ESFP) tends to win about 9 chess games out of 10. According to himself, he can't really explain how he does it.

[Lee]

ISTJ

[Trolsk]

Fischer having P-type is a ridiculous claim.

Key elements to playing high-level chess include abilities of logic, creativity, focus and knowledge assimilation. I believe there might be a trend toward introverted thinkers and a variety of the intuitives.

[Conan]

well i know they always talk about how kasparov was a perfectionist and even if he won hed still be upset if he made a mistake during the game, and that seems like an intj quality to me

[Mr. Beef]

INTJ and ENTJ generally make better chess players than ENTP and INTP. This is because while chess involves creativity and logic, it also requires step-by-step followthrough and planning abilities, much like fighting a military battle. xNTJs seem to have an advantage at seeing possibilities and doing what needs to be done to achieve them, hence "The Mastermind" and "The Fieldmarshall". I think that xNTPs are a little too scatterbrained and irresolute to reach the highest levels of chess, though all NTs in general tend to be fairly good at chess.

[joft]

this debate is kind of silly, chess is one game, gaming is one specific area of life, overall general personality preferences really aren't going to have much effect on something like this that's so specific. it's like asking if INTPs or ENTJs are better at swimming; people from either personality may or may not have a naturally physical body and just the right build for swimming. people from either personality may or may not have just the right amount of love for the game of chess to become involved in it enough.

being a RIDICULOUSLY indecisive P has never stopped me from being able to execute strategies and so on in chess. a game that's 30min or even a few hours isn't going to outlast my wandering attention span.

[booyalab]

this debate is kind of silly, chess is one game, gaming is one specific area of life, overall general personality preferences really aren't going to have much effect on something like this that's so specific. it's like asking if INTPs or ENTJs are better at swimming; people from either personality may or may not have a naturally physically body and just the right build for swimming. people from either personality may or may not have just the right amount of love for the game of chess to become involved in it enough.

being a RIDICULOUSLY indecisive P has never stopped me from being able to execute strategies and so on in chess. a game that's 30min or even a few hours isn't going to outlast my wandering attention span.

no it's not the same thing. Mr. Beef is right. NTJs tend to be better with order, NTPs tend to be better with organization (conceptually). Order is causal, like chess. Organization is structural, like grandiose theories.

[Mr. Beef]

Well that's clear.....Of course anyone can be good at chess i'm just saying that the IDEAL chess player would most logically be someone with an INTJ skillset. The reasons are pretty obvious.

[Melody]

i have enveloped order as structure, but this was recent and i can see it as a difficulty for chess

[Conan]

it's like asking if INTPs or ENTJs are better at swimming; people from either personality may or may not have a naturally physically body and just the right build for swimming. people from either personality may or may not have just the right amount of love for the game of chess to become involved in it enough.


thats a horrible analogy, swimming is a physical competition, while chess is played exclusively with the mind

[joft]

the "mind" is a physical organ, namely, the brain.

[Conan]

the "mind" is a physical organ, namely, the brain.

actually, joft, i think youre confused, the "mind" is NOT a physical organ, that would be the "brain." The mind is in fact "the human consciousness that ORIGINATES in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination"

dont get technical with me, youve already made one bad analogy and one false statement, your credibility is slipping fast, and youll just have to live with it

[joft]

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific.

I do not believe there is such a thing as "mind," that is why I put it in quotations. The way I see it, I only have reason to believe in the brain, and I can attribute all of the things that have been formerly attributed to "mind" to the brain, so I have no use for the concept of mind.

Hence my statement, that the "mind" is just simply the brain, which is a physical organ.

[Conan]

I'm sorry, I should have been more specific.

I do not believe there is such a thing as "mind," that is why I put it in quotations. The way I see it, I only have reason to believe in the brain, and I can attribute all of the things that have been formerly attributed to "mind" to the brain, so I have no use for the concept of mind.

Hence my statement, that the "mind" is just simply the brain, which is a physical organ.

hmm, interesting

so, lets say, for example, do you not believe in such a thing as "vision", or rather, just eyeballs?

[Mr. Beef]

This is a fairly frivolous debate.....the main point is that swimming has no correlation with personality whatsoever whereas chess has a strong correlation with it. And i don't even know what saying "the mind/brain is an organ" had anything to do with this. Yes, the brain IS an organ....one in which personality manifests itself. INTJs and INTPs may or may not have different lung capacities, muscular strength, etc., but they most certainly have different brain structures. And I personally don't see why either of you two are arguing about the existence of "the mind". It's clear that the mind is simply our comprehensive consciousness and not some organ. Webster's dictionary will tell you that. :)

[Conan]

This is a fairly frivolous debate.....the main point is that swimming has no correlation with personality whatsoever whereas chess has a strong correlation with it. And i don't even know what saying "the mind/brain is an organ" had anything to do with this. Yes, the brain IS an organ....one in which personality manifests itself. INTJs and INTPs may or may not have different lung capacities, muscular strength, etc., but they most certainly have different brain structures.

yes. thank you. that was the point i was trying to make, i suppose my original statement "swimming is a physical competition, while chess is played exclusively with the mind" just wasnt clear enough.

[joft]

This is a fairly frivolous debate.....the main point is that swimming has no correlation with personality whatsoever whereas chess has a strong correlation with it. And i don't even know what saying "the mind/brain is an organ" had anything to do with this. Yes, the brain IS an organ....one in which personality manifests itself. INTJs and INTPs may or may not have different lung capacities, muscular strength, etc., but they most certainly have different brain structures. And I personally don't see why either of you two are arguing about the existence of "the mind". It's clear that the mind is simply our comprehensive consciousness and not some organ. Webster's dictionary will tell you that. :)
webster's dictionary also defines "god," does that prove his existence? and when did MBTI become a scientific indicator of brain structure? MBTI is far from established scientifically. yet you can argue with such J-like certainty (i'm kidding) that the logical, strategical, tactical, and so on, abilities to play chess, directly correlate to having a different letter in your results on some silly personality test?

[Conan]

joft, you didnt do very well on the SAT verbal section did you

[joft]

actually, I'm going to be taking the SAT (for the first time) this saturday. 'preciate the ad hominem, tho

[Dunearhp]

My father is INTJ and he gets upset if he can't play his very best game. This means that he won't play with a time limit. He takes days to weeks. He flat out refuses to play a game in one sitting.

I prefer to play by intuition and hope that I can think faster than my opponent in the given time frame. I don't care if I make a mistake as long as I notice it in passing.

I think that if INTJs do do better at chess it is only because they take it more seriously, and pursue it more linearly.

[Conan]

actually, I'm going to be taking the SAT (for the first time) this saturday. 'preciate the ad hominem, tho

sorry, your statements just failed to indicate to me that you had any comprehension of the point i was making (im sure Mr. Beef can explain it to you if you ask him nicely), so i just didnt feel it was worth arguing with you over nothing

good luck on your SATs by the way

[Conan]

by the way, the trick to analogies is to make a sentence relating the two words before looking at the answers, sentence completion, fill it in with your own word before looking at the answers, and reading comprehension, read only the first and last paragraphs then go straight to the question and dig the answers out from there

[Dunearhp]

INTJs and INTPs may or may not have different lung capacities, muscular strength, etc., but they most certainly have different brain structures.
Two INTPs most certainly have different brain structures, so do identical twins. All it takes is a one neuron difference.

Neurology has not progressed to the point that it can accurately predict personality from an MRI scan. Arguing brain structure in this context is pointless.

[Conan]

youre all missing the point, whether or not the "mind" exists or whether or not MBTI corresponds to physical brain structure is irrelevant, we know INTJ's tend to make good scientists, ISTP's tend to make good mechanics etc...

the question is there a type (from what we know if it, youre here so you know something about it) that would be ideal for chess?

[joft]

i'm probably being too vague and assuming people know what I'm talking about.

I tend to agree with the theory of "mind" Steven Pinker advocates in "How the mind works," the brain basically does the same thing computers do (computations), but it is also divided into "modules" that accomplish different specific things. given that theory, the modules that benefit chess playing may or may not correlate with whatever overall trend causes the difference in personality that MBTI attempts to depict on its J/P axis. but until any kind of scientific study is actually done, assuming science ever even has use for something like MBTI, it's only conjecture. I suspect there is no correlation, some INTPs rock at chess, some suck at it, some INTPs have great artistic abilities, some can't even make proper stick figures.

[Hustler]

by the way, the trick to analogies is to make a sentence relating the two words before looking at the answers, sentence completion, fill it in with your own word before looking at the answers, and reading comprehension, read only the first and last paragraphs then go straight to the question and dig the answers out from there

I think they took the analogies out of the SAT.

[nottaprettygal]

My father is INTJ and he gets upset if he can't play his very best game. This means that he won't play with a time limit. He takes days to weeks. He flat out refuses to play a game in one sitting.

I think that if INTJs do do better at chess it is only because they take it more seriously, and pursue it more linearly.

Yes. I can relate to this. I'm pretty bad at chess (although I do like it), but I take it seriously and can't stand the idea of playing with a time limit. I like thinking EVERYTHING out.

This is why no one likes playing Scrabble with me. I'm always looking for words that will score more points....no matter how long it takes.

[Mr. Beef]

I don't understand what's so damn hard to understand what i'm saying! INTJs and INTPs differ in their ability to play chess in most cases because of their personality structure. As for other ANYTHING else that doesn't require the use of the "mind" there is no correlation. Simple. And as for Dunearhp your comment was completely worthless and misguided. By "they certainly have different brain structures" I was saying that unlike swimming where there is no relationship with personality in chess there are differences between the skill/style of INTJs and INTPs because they THINK differently. That's all. Maybe instead of "brain structure" I should have said "mode of thinking" so you would know that i was trying to distinguish between the way INTJs and INTPs think. And yeah, you could always say "we all have different modes of thought/brain structures" but you would be missing the point!! INTJs have SIMILAR modes of thought as other INTJs as do INTPs with other INTPs!! Why do you think we even have personality types? To group people who think similarly! And that's what we're doing here....analyzing these different thinking patterns. I hope you've two have learned your lesson. :rant:





webster's dictionary also defines "god," does that prove his existence? and when did MBTI become a scientific indicator of brain structure? MBTI is far from established scientifically. yet you can argue with such J-like certainty (i'm kidding) that the logical, strategical, tactical, and so on, abilities to play chess, directly correlate to having a different letter in your results on some silly personality test?


And as for this.....i'm inclined to snicker like a schoolboy. Okay....let's start with your god assertion." 1. A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions." is the dictionary definition of god. "A conscioussness originating from the brain." is the definition of mind. Note the word "conceived" meaning that it is not necessarily true. Whereas the definition of mind implies nothing of the sort. Besides, what evidence do you have for the mind not existing? Are you not the one who typed typed that? Can you think? That's basically what mind is. I don't personally know if you're a conscious entity and neither does anyone else but we're going to make a stretch of the imagination (and quite a painful one) and assume for now that you in fact DO have a mind. Though there's no way of knowing for sure, i'm pretty sure that what i experience could be considered consciousness and that that's probably true everyone else (though not necessarily). Just because something's in the dictionary doesn't mean it does or does not exist. And what the hell is that "J-like certainty" thing? Okay...i guess i should always just say "Maybe maybe not" whenver someone talks to me to prevent being a "J". I simply made an observation and attempted to reason it based on logic, something you need working on. That's not J or P in any way. I can't even describe the things wrong with that statement. And as for that last part.....that was an abysmal misinterpretation of what i said. It doesn't "directly" correlate, but i would guess that there is a correlation as the judging function involves step-by-step organized reasoning, a key asset in chess. Military officials are almost always xNTJ, hence "The Mastermind" and "The Fieldmarshall" as I said earlier. So yes, I do think that it's correlated to the judging function. And why shouldn't it be? Is it unreasonable to assume that people with different personalities are better/worse at different things? Let me help you with that....NO.


I don't even know why we're still debating this....it's fairly obvious that INTJ/ENTJ have special abilities in chess. And as Dunhearrt said they take the game seriously and pursue it more linearly which is really just a hackneyed version of what i was saying earlier....because of their judging funtion, they are equipped with linear thinking skills that allow them to take the steps necessary to achieve their goals, so yes, they probably are generally better at chess.

[joft]

I don't understand what's so damn hard to understand what i'm saying! INTJs and INTPs differ in their ability to play chess in most cases because of their personality structure. As for other ANYTHING else that doesn't require the use of the "mind" there is no correlation. Simple.
An arbitrary assertion followed by a false or pointless statement; what activity doesn't require use of the brain? Swimming requires excellent body coordination, controlled breathing, etc, etc.

Note the word "conceived" meaning that it is not necessarily true. Whereas the definition of mind implies nothing of the sort. Besides, what evidence do you have for the mind not existing?
Are you still actually arguing for the existence of something based on its definition in the dictionary? I don't have to provide any evidence that the "mind" doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on those still trying to claim it does when we have reached a point in our study of the brain where we can attribute everything that has formerly been attributed to "mind" to the brain. The word "mind" is only useful as a metaphor referring to the brain, so why not leave out the middle-man. This argument is also pointless and unrelated to the main issue.

And what the hell is that "J-like certainty" thing?
It was a joke (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=186313&postcount=25&highlight=kidding), but now I'm a little inclined to think it was actually quite accurate.


And why shouldn't it be? Is it unreasonable to assume that people with different personalities are better/worse at different things? Let me help you with that....NO.

I don't even know why we're still debating this....it's fairly obvious that INTJ/ENTJ have special abilities in chess.
Arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary. Back your statements up with more than folk psychology and dictionary arguments; back them up with some actual science, or refute the science I'm referencing, just stop being arbitrary. I'm reluctant to volunteer any more arguments or attack your position because you still haven't addressed my actual argument (http://forums.intpcentral.com/showpost.php?p=186330&postcount=33) which is based on some actual science. But let me try meet you on a folk psychology level; "personality" refers to overall trends in behavior, it doesn't mean that people with certain personalities are incapable of achieving the same or better skill at one very specific activity than the people whose personalities supposedly make them naturally inclined to be skilled at that activity. You have the admission of an INTJ in this very thread that she sucks at chess; you have the assertion that INTJs strongly dislike "timed" games, and yet those games make up a significant portion of competitive chess play.

[Neppy]

I enjoy chess and am competent at it. When I was a kid, I got a Kasperov chess computer, which was fun, because nobody I knew in person knew how to play it except me. So I went to a chess club full of old men. It was strange, but hey, if old men will play chess with me then why not?

I've never actually had a strategy though, which is my downfall. I always just played based on where the pieces were at the time, and did my best to defend my own pieces. Sometimes I failed to notice when my opponent was moving in for the kill, because I was so focused on defending my knights, bishops or rooks. I don't see myself ever being a "grandmaster" at chess. I wouldn't speak for all INTPs though. Perhaps we have the right minds for it, but it's a matter of how determined one is to become that skilled in the game.

[Maniac]

I suppose. The top-level chess players study 8-10 hours a day, every day. In a sense, it is easier for a kid to get good than an adult--they have less to preoccupy and distract them.

I recognize that one of the things that held me back in chess was my fear that I was digressing from "theory," especially in the opening, and that I had not enough faith in my own intuition. That was before I learned I was an INTP and what it means, though.

A great chess book is "How to Reassess Your Chess," by Jeremy Silman. It expresses a lot of basic principles, many similar to those described in hard-to-read chess books like Nimzovich's "Chess Praxis and Kotov's "Think Like a Grandmaster." Those latter two are impossible to get through.

For a beginning chess player, all you need is tactics, tactics, tactics. Those books you quoted up there are all about strategy. It's a very well known fact that most sub-grandmaster level games are usually decided by tactical blunders, not subtle strategic maneuvers. I've tried it on myself and after only a few weeks of intense tactics study my point rating was up about 50 points. Check out this article entitled "400 points in 400 days", a rather ambitious and intense study program.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles148.pdf
http://www.chesscafe.com/text/skittles150.pdf

Chess is 99 percent tactics. – Richard Teichmann

[Maniac]

this debate is kind of silly, chess is one game, gaming is one specific area of life, overall general personality preferences really aren't going to have much effect on something like this that's so specific. it's like asking if INTPs or ENTJs are better at swimming; people from either personality may or may not have a naturally physically body and just the right build for swimming. people from either personality may or may not have just the right amount of love for the game of chess to become involved in it enough.

being a RIDICULOUSLY indecisive P has never stopped me from being able to execute strategies and so on in chess. a game that's 30min or even a few hours isn't going to outlast my wandering attention span.

100% AGREED!

[Maniac]

Are you still actually arguing for the existence of something based on its definition in the dictionary? I don't have to provide any evidence that the "mind" doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on those still trying to claim it does when we have reached a point in our study of the brain where we can attribute everything that has formerly been attributed to "mind" to the brain. The word "mind" is only useful as a metaphor referring to the brain, so why not leave out the middle-man. This argument is also pointless and unrelated to the main issue.

Actually, I have to disagree with you here. The burden on proof is on both of you and at the same time on none of you. You can't use appeals to ignorance to prove or disprove something. You can't say that "because we have no proof of the mind then it doesn't exist," just like they can't say, "because we don't have any disproofs of the mind it must exist." Those are 2 seperate and non-overlapping burdens. LOL, I used to use your argument myself many times, when I didn't understand shit about argumentation. Then again, I always took the SATs once...

[kuranes]

hmm, interesting

so, lets say, for example, do you not believe in such a thing as "vision", or rather, just eyeballs?

Good analogy. I may steal it, and therefore pay you the biggest compliment. I've heard "skeptical inquirer" types say there is nothing called "the mind". But I WOULD agree that there is not a "personality" per se.

[Conan]

kuranes, thanks, i liked the analogy too, i only wish joft hadnt avoided the question.

and joft, youre getting too philosophical, i dont want to argue the existence of the mind or the merits of the briggs myers personality type system. given that MBTI type can to some extent predict what types would be best at a certain career, is it that hard to believe that MBTI can suggest a type that would be ideally suited for the game of chess?

mr. beef, i hear ya, though im not yet necessarily convinced that J is necessarily a better quality that P

i would think I is better than E (geared towards ideas and concepts), N is better than S (seeing possibilities rather than simply what exists at the moment), and T is better than F (dont think i need to explain that one)

[joft]

Maniac, I don't think the burden of proof is on me to disprove "mind" any more than the burden of proof is on any atheist to disprove "God." why? because this is an INTP forum, we're scientific, logical types, and if that isn't good enough then nothing is because "mind" and "God" have absolutely no falsifiability because of their entirely unscientific nature.

As for the eye thing, again, "vision" is just a concept people use to refer to the real process, and is usually accompanied by misconceptions (same as "mind"). you have an eyeball receiving photons and sending a signal to the brain which does a bunch of gnarly things with the data.

[Conan]

Maniac, I don't think the burden of proof is on me to disprove "mind" any more than the burden of proof is on any atheist to disprove "God." why? because this is an INTP forum, we're scientific, logical types, and if that isn't good enough then nothing is because "mind" and "God" have absolutely no falsifiability because of their entirely unscientific nature.

As for the eye thing, again, "vision" is just a concept people use to refer to the real process, and is usually accompanied by misconceptions (same as "mind"). you have an eyeball receiving photons and sending a signal to the brain which does a bunch of gnarly things with the data.

the "entirely unscientific nature of the mind?" youve gotta be kidding me.

like you said, that "eyeball receiving photons and sending a signal to the brain which does a bunch of gnarly things with the data" exists. and its called "vision." in other words vision is a "word" that refers to this process you just described. therefore "vision" exists.

think about things too much and you manage to convolute very simple and obvious concepts. i feel like so many intp's while supposed to be scientific and logical as you said, can often be the least logical of all types

[joft]

I also said that I just use the word "mind" to refer to "brain," and may as well just say brain anyway instead of having an extra word. "mind" is not a noun that refers to a process, "vision" is, you don't say "the brain has mind," but you could say "the eyes have vision." so while the word "mind" is pretty much pointless, vision is still useful (eyes can't do grammatically for vision what brain can do for mind).

[Conan]

sorry, my mistake, vision does NOT refer to the "process" it refers to the entity that exists as a "result" of the process, as mind refers to the entity that exists as a result of the process, nevertheless they both exist, on the other hand the brain and eye are physical organs that you can touch and feel, vision and mind, do not refer to these physical organs, but rather are conceptual words that refer to entities that MOST humans understand

as hannibal lecter used to say, you can eat a brain, you cant eat a mind.

remember, making things more complicated than they are doesnt necessarily make you more intelligent, even if it makes you feel that way

[Dolphin]

Either INTP or INTJ. True, a persons intelligence would outweigh any benefits of the personality.

Are we forgetting that the MBTI personality types are more like cognitive functions?

Chess is a game of strategy, the ability to see several moves ahead is important for winning. So NT would be best suited for this ( long term objective thinking ).

Then introverted would be better since it requires a certain mindset, as well as the ability to stay in their mind and focus without distractions.

I choose INTP because the Ne is better at seeing more possibilities than the Ni. But all personality types can do well at chess.

Edit: You can play chess against a computer here:
http://www.postcardchess.com/computerchess.html

[Mr. Beef]

No no no no no no no no nono no!!! You guys are COMPLETING missing the main point!!



An arbitrary assertion followed by a false or pointless statement; what activity doesn't require use of the brain? Swimming requires excellent body coordination, controlled breathing, etc, etc.

I don't even know what the hell i'm supposed to say to this....it's really really really illogical. It requires parts of the brain which have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with personality!! What is sooo hard to understand about that?


Are you still actually arguing for the existence of something based on its definition in the dictionary? I don't have to provide any evidence that the "mind" doesn't exist, the burden of proof is on those still trying to claim it does when we have reached a point in our study of the brain where we can attribute everything that has formerly been attributed to "mind" to the brain. The word "mind" is only useful as a metaphor referring to the brain, so why not leave out the middle-man. This argument is also pointless and unrelated to the main issue.


Refer to Esteban. You can't really determine whether sight or the mind or consciousness or anything is really true, but then what's the point of science? You could say that we don't know the boiling point of water because there could be some specific quantity that boils at a different temperature, but for practical purposes let's just assume that everything that has ever been created or produced or thought of or done by humans has been a product of THE MIND. There's far far far more evidence to suggest that our concept of "THE MIND" does exist. This is a fairly ridiculous subargument.





It was a joke, but now I'm a little inclined to think it was actually quite accurate.

I don't really care if you're kidding or not, you still said it and it's inaccurate. I guess because i don't like dealing with illogical arguments i'm a J. I generally listen to what other people say, but not in this case. Your arguments are pretty ridiculous.


Arbitrary, arbitrary, arbitrary. Back your statements up with more than folk psychology and dictionary arguments; back them up with some actual science, or refute the science I'm referencing, just stop being arbitrary. I'm reluctant to volunteer any more arguments or attack your position because you still haven't addressed my actual argument which is based on some actual science. But let me try meet you on a folk psychology level; "personality" refers to overall trends in behavior, it doesn't mean that people with certain personalities are incapable of achieving the same or better skill at one very specific activity than the people whose personalities supposedly make them naturally inclined to be skilled at that activity. You have the admission of an INTJ in this very thread that she sucks at chess; you have the assertion that INTJs strongly dislike "timed" games, and yet those games make up a significant portion of competitive chess play.

Umm....you're actually supporting what i said in that last part. LOL. I specifically mentioned earlier that it's a trend, not an absolute. It's like saying that black people are better at basketball.....statistics show that there are more NBA players that are black than non-black, but this doesn't mean all are that way. What my argument was was that because of their linear logical abilities and excellent foresight, INTJ/ENTJs would probably be more prevalent among chessmasters, which is what this post is asking. I think i've said this like twenty times, but why do you think the INTJ is called "The Mastermind" and the ENTJ "The Fieldmarshall"? You think they just randomly smacked a completely abritrary title on? No, not at all. ENTJs and INTJs are more frequent among military officials and strategists as their names would imply. They are adept at strategizing and taking over a situation. As for that one INTJ who said she wasn't good at chess, that was very illogical. An exception does not disprove anything. In conclusion, INTJ/ENTJ are not NECESSARILY better at chess, but appear to have skillsets that would be advantageous. I addressed the "evidence" earlier, but you weren't to keen on remembering it. I never said INTP couldn't "rock" at chess. I said most NTs tend to be pretty good at chess, but INTJ/ENTJ should be more suited. There is nothing you can say to refute me on this. I'm not even claiming INTJs are better, i'm just saying that that is a more logical hypothesis than saying that neither is better.

[Mr. Beef]

And to address the statement about INTP's having Ne as an advantage at seeing possbilities, this is quite possible. INTJs have the upperhand in linear thinking and planning, which are crucial in chess, but they may not see as many possibilities as INTPs.

[Mr. Beef]

folk psychology

What?! No, no. There is NO mention of folk psychology. HAHAHAHA. that's the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard. I didn't take anything from folk psych. You just didn't read anything I had to say.


100% agreed!

Then why does this post even exist?! You can't just say that all types are equal at everything. We're not trying to prove that any type is better at anything we're just trying to analyze what might give some types an advantage at chess!!!!




Look joft and anyone else i may have offended, i'm not trying to be a jerk. I'm just trying to help you understand things better.

[joft]

I'm just going to concede the mind argument; you win. I have a hard time treating MBTI typology seriously, but the original poster's question was about MBTI types. So now arguing entirely in MBTI terms:

I think an INTJ may be better at executing their own strategy because of the "linear" thinking, but I also think an INTP would be better at picking up on what their opponent is doing and adapting to that. Chess has an enormous game-tree complexity, at any move the game can take on a completely different nature, and I would say P gives us an advantage at going with that flow. Shall we agree to disagree?

[Maniac]

Maniac, I don't think the burden of proof is on me to disprove "mind" any more than the burden of proof is on any atheist to disprove "God." why? because this is an INTP forum, we're scientific, logical types, and if that isn't good enough then nothing is because "mind" and "God" have absolutely no falsifiability because of their entirely unscientific nature.

Open a logic book and look up "appeals to ignorance." Better yet look here http://fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html




There is no evidence for p.
Therefore, not-p.

Apparently, for all of the $100 words you're using, you don't know your ass from your elbow when it comes to logic or science, and I'm suspecting it's the same case for social relating and INTPs in general...

[Maniac]

It's like saying that black people are better at basketball.....statistics show that there are more NBA players that are black than non-black, but this doesn't mean all are that way.

As a note, I'd like to add that using statistics to show meaningful and significant cause and effect relationships are usually exercises in futility...

[Melody]

get some bally total fitness in ur schedules

[joft]

Open a logic book and look up "appeals to ignorance." Better yet look here http://fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
I'm sorry if you thought my argument was an appeal to ignorance, it's actually based on some philosophical and logical concepts that science is greatly dependant upon: Falsifiability, the principle of parsimony, eliminative materialism, scientific naturalism, etc. If you want to apply the logical fallacy of appeals to ignorance to the philosophy of science, you're welcome to, and I would agree with many of the points you would make. But for the sake of accuracy I can think of nothing better suited to describe reality than science, and for the sake of this conversation I have been anally scientific. If you want to continue the mind/brain debate I'd suggest we take it to another thread though.

[NoahFence]

As a note, I'd like to add that using statistics to show meaningful and significant cause and effect relationships are usually exercises in futility...
Yes, 78% of all people know that

And am I the only one who's noticed this in commercials? The new improved razor that shaves 52% closer? People getting 47% better sleep on this new matress? How the hell do you even measure that??

[Conan]

thanks joft. you had the entire forum to argue the existence of "mind" and the merits of the MBTI system, but instead you decided to go ahead and ruin my thread with your "anally scientific" gibberish, and yes, in my "mind" which apparently does not exist, your posts were a bunch of gibberish

by the way, you can have a brain without a mind, its called a dead brain. yet another example for you of how the two are NOT one and the same. its really not that complicated, but then again you do think the study of the mind is "entirely unscientific."

[Conan]

Apparently, for all of the $100 words you're using, you don't know your ass from your elbow when it comes to logic or science, and I'm suspecting it's the same case for social relating and INTPs in general...

those were my thoughts exactly.

[Mr. Beef]

Let's just all agree that INTPs and INTJs have different skills that might give them advantages in the game of chess. But in my opinion the skills that INTJs possess would give them more of an advantage....and this is strictly my opinion. It would just seem that given their high prevalence among military generals and strategists that they on the whole would be more specialized for chess. I think that the P functions ability to foresee more options might actually be a problem rather than an advantage. If you see too many possibilities then you might not be able to commit to one path of action. As for being able to notice patterns and adapt to an opponent the INTP would have an advantage, but the INTJ is still able to make a logical move based on the current situation, and once you expose your opponent's initial strategy i don't think there's much to adapting other than reassessing the gameboard each move. I think the advantage of the INTJ to plan and be decisive outweighs the advantage at seeing more possibilities in chess. Have you guys ever heard of the Deep Blue chess program? It had phenomenal computational power and could perceive millions of possible moves per turn. The Deep Fritz, an equally effective chess program could only perceive around 20,000 per turn, but because of its extraordinary strategic abilities and ability to select the most efficient move sequences it was able to compensate for it's relatively poor processing abilities. The point is that seeing a large number of possibilities isn't as much of an advantage (in fact it could be seen as a disadvantage) as being able to pick the most efficient one you perceive and commiting to a course of action. The INTP advantage of seeing more patterns and possibilities is useless if they can't process all of them, and seeing as how chess is a game of speed it's vital to be decisive. Though the INTP ability of perceiving an opponent's strategy easily could be considered an advantage, i think that the ability to notice patterns in chess is really more dependent on experience. Each player attempts to execute a strategy at the beginning of the game, but then after a while is really just being able to take the steps necessary to destroy your opponnent piece by piece.....literally. That's why chess is more tactics than anything, which requires linear thinking (INTJ). INTJ's ability to make a plan, keep the big picture in mind and take the necessary steps to accomplish it is why i think they would have an advantage. I am an INTP and I notice that I see way too many possibilities and patterns to act on when i play chess....though that's just me. It seems to be a trend though.

[Dolphin]

For INTJ’s once they have a plan they are very likely to stick to it. You cannot predict your opponent. Plans may need to change.

Seeing more possibilities can make you see a better option than the one you originaly were going to go with. It also can give you an edge in unpredictability.

Part of chess is getting inside your opponents head, if your opponent is unpredictable then this becomes harder to do.

From:

http://www.sonshi.com/sun1.html



Before doing battle, in the temple one calculates and will win, because many calculations were made;
before doing battle, in the temple one calculates and will not win, because few calculations were made;

[Mr. Beef]

I think that the ability to see more possibilities can actually slow you down, especially when you can't pick the best choice. And i don't really think that there is much strategy in chess aside from the initial few moves. After that it's really just step-by-step playing off of your opponent.

[Conan]

hmm

introverted thinking + extraverted intution

vs

introverted intuition + extraverted thinking

at least we have finalists

[Dolphin]

I think that the ability to see more possibilities can actually slow you down, especially when you can't pick the best choice. And i don't really think that there is much strategy in chess aside from the initial few moves. After that it's really just step-by-step playing off of your opponent. Yes I would have to agree with that. But things change while you are playing and new opportunities may arise if one was looking hard enough. Chess usually is a slow game so time isn't too much of a problem, but yes I agree you can't sit there thinking all day long.

[Mr. Beef]

It think that there's really a perfect balance that can be found in either type.
You want the right amount of each skill....the question is in which type is more of this balance found?

[Dolphin]

An INTX. LOL!

[joft]

I don't sit at the board considering every possible legal move when it's my turn because I'm an INTP (like many chess computer programs do, and are therefore not very impressive by being able to calculate thousands of moves per second, because those thousands of moves could be exploring a path that any human player could tell you in a moment is doomed). any player with a moderate amount of experience can easily assess the only worthwhile moves given a certain board setup within seconds, and then take more time to explore which of them is better one or more moves ahead. Again, I think the skills and discipline required for this single game are too specific to eliminate based on personality type and can be acquired by anyone. If anything, the largest indicator of maximum potential will be overall intelligence, independent of personality.

[Mr. Beef]

it does have to do with overall intelligence, but both INTP and INTJ both possess specific skills that are advantageous, and i'd bet that most grandmasters are INTJ/INTP with a slight J inclination. But in reality it's impossible to know how much J and P are needed for maximum effect. Too much (or too little) of either could be bad.


the only worthwhile moves given a certain board setup within seconds,


Not true at all. There are a large number of possibilities to eliminate, and as you said it does take a long time to consider which of those not eliminated works best. Also, it's easy to overlook a small detail when eliminating possibilities, thus accepting a move that would be completely illogical. This is why chess can be hard to be good at....some people just process faster and eliminate illogical choices better. Chess is really an all-emcompassing game.

[Maniac]

I don't sit at the board considering every possible legal move when it's my turn because I'm an INTP (like many chess computer programs do, and are therefore not very impressive by being able to calculate thousands of moves per second, because those thousands of moves could be exploring a path that any human player could tell you in a moment is doomed).

Actually, computers can also calculate candidate moves (to some extent). I suggest you look up something called alpha beta pruning...

[Maniac]

by the way, you can have a brain without a mind, its called a dead brain. yet another example for you of how the two are NOT one and the same. its really not that complicated, but then again you do think the study of the mind is "entirely unscientific."

That was going to be my next post. joft, if vision is eyeballs, and mind is brain, then what differentiates a dead brain from a live one? Obviously both a dead person and a live person have eyeballs, but only one can experience something called vision. How does your "anally scientific" and "highly practical" theory explain that? Can your theory also explain how someone can talk out of their ass, or is that a phenomenon solely reserved to you? (sorry, but sometimes ad hominem can be fun ;) )

[Maniac]

I'm sorry if you thought my argument was an appeal to ignorance, it's actually based on some philosophical and logical concepts that science is greatly dependant upon: Falsifiability, the principle of parsimony, eliminative materialism, scientific naturalism, etc. If you want to apply the logical fallacy of appeals to ignorance to the philosophy of science, you're welcome to, and I would agree with many of the points you would make. But for the sake of accuracy I can think of nothing better suited to describe reality than science, and for the sake of this conversation I have been anally scientific. If you want to continue the mind/brain debate I'd suggest we take it to another thread though.

I personally prefer philosophy. Science can only address what the five senses can experience, and as an N, I feel that there are things out there that the five senses cannot perceive. Are you sure you're not ISTP? Then again, would ISTP be describing your brain or your mind? Do you think there are physical differences between an ISTP and an INTP brain, or brains of any 2 types for that matter? My head is funny shaped, but then again, I thought all INTPs were like that ;) (your avatar doesn't disappoint in that respect, either)

Eliminative materialism is not scientific, it is a philisophical argument. Ever heard of qualia? Neither is naturalism.

Ever hear the saying that the greatest trick the devil ever played was convincing the world he didn't exist? This kind of reminds me of that. It is quite ironic (and amusing, to say the least) to see your own mind issuing arguments about the non-existence of the mind. Excuse me while I go snicker...

Ok I'm back. Let me answer your question with a question. Would you agree that something not bound by space or time (ie, the mind), if it did exist, would also not necessarily be bound by any of the scientific "behaviors" we have come to expect? How can something apparently unscientific, if it exists, follow the rules of science?

Even science has its limits. Science is a tool. A very useful tool. When tools becomes ideologies, however, then the usefulness of those tools become severely limited. The point of tools is to free you from boundaries, not to enclose you in them.

Falsifiability shows clearly that science, all of science, is nothing more than an inductive hypothesis. Water froze today at 0 celsius, and the day before that. But whether it will do so tomorrow is a mystery, although we've become accustomed to it enough to take for granted the "tomorrow" part. That is the weak point, and ultimately, the downfall of the scientific method. When that day comes, I would very much like to be in your presence. Until then, we can only argue...

[Mr. Beef]

The fact is that discussing the issue of consciousness is messy because no one can prove each other is conscious yet we know that we ourselves are......very EENT-AH-RESTING........that being said, we assume each other are conscious in order to function in this world (see my former analogy a few pages back that i'm too lazy to find).

[Dumpy]

Back to chess?

As I argued earlier, to be a top-ranked chessplayer, you have to memorize (and retain!) thousands of opening lines, many well over a dozen moves deep for each side (and you have to know subvariations, long-term plans that can be derived from each opening, etc.). You also have to know your end-game theory cold (try checkmating someone with just a knight and bishop, for example); many games revolve around reaching a favorable end-game position, which may hinge on the position of a single pawn. These things aren't really our strengths--at least, memorization and detail are not MY strengths, whether in chess, school, or any other endeavor, and I assume I'm not atypical among INTPs.

See, this is why people hate chess. It isn't fun on that level.

OK, so let's ignore all the memorization and study, and, say, transport ouselves back in tome before the development of such complex chess "theory."

There are several things going on in a chess game at the same time: (1) tactics: is there a forced combination that can lead to an advantage (either a gain of a piece, a gain of time, of a permanent gain of position)? (2) prophylactics: does my opponent have a tactic available? If so, how do I stop it? (3) strategy: what are my long-term aims? Can my opponent easily stop my plan? (4) what are my opponents' possible long-term aims? are they dangerous? Can I stop them? Can I accomplish my long-term aims before my opponent? (5) blunders: confirm that I am not making an obvious blunder (that is, that I don't have a blind spot), and that my opponent has not already made one.

To me, the most interesting part of the game is the long-term strategy. Basically, it is all imagination: where do I want my pieces to be? If I could magically transport all my pieces to new squares, where would I put them? Can I move them there on their own? How? How long will it take? Does my opponent have a quicker plan, or can my opponent block this strategy with a single move? When it comes to strategy, the goal is not necessarily "to checkmate the king," or to capture a particular piece. An example of a long-term strategic goal is to post a knight on an advanced square where he can't be chased away with a pawn. Or it could be figuring out how to shred you opponent's pawn structure or to control the center of the board. This is the part where INTPs can really shine. In contrast, tactics is all calculation, not imagination: so long as you can play out a continuation for enough moves (and recognize common patterns that pop up all the time), you can excel at tactics. Once you start to grasp strategy, you can adapt opening moves that promote long-term strategy, and decrease the liklihood of tactics (such as playing indian defenses instead of gambits). Sometimes it can be fun to spend 45 minutes developing a long-term strategy, and carrying it out over 10 or 15 moves (taking the time after each move, of course, to constantly check for tactical possibilities that may have arisen).

Since this is what we are good at, I think, the key would seem to be to take the game out of opening theory as soon as possible--make your opponent think for himself as early as you can, for that is where we can beat them. But this is more for those INTPs that want to improve their game, and wouldn't help anyone reach grandmaster status without going through all the memorization mentioned earlier.

[Melody]

i would imagine a dead brain is one without electrical signals running through it, while a living brain is one with electrical signals running through it

[Maniac]

i would imagine a dead brain is one without electrical signals running through it, while a living brain is one with electrical signals running through it

An observation, but not an explanation. WHY does one brain have eletrical signals running through it, while another does not?

[Melody]

cuz a biological system is supporting it O.o

[Maniac]

cuz a biological system is supporting it O.o

And how does it happen that one biological system is giving support while another one is not?

[Melody]

cuz the other got shot in the heart

[Melody]

im being sarcastic and satirical; this debate is a common philosophical item, prolly present in every other thread on intpc. here is a recent one: http://forums.intpcentral.com/showthread.php?t=7041

as for the actual topic of this thread, i believe there are certain "structures"/"personalities"/"minds" (they may all be taken as synonymous in this case--the question of which are real and which are not is irrelevant) which will yield a higher degree of skill than others

however, whether the denominators of differentiation fall snugly within MBTI metrics is another question. they may, as has been said, be "structures"/"personalities"/"minds" that anyone with enough passion for chess will be able to form

one thing that has been pointed out has been that "j" is "process"-oriented, while "p" is "architecture"-oriented, but i gave an example of myself, who scores as a "p," as having wrapped the concept of "process" within the concept of "architecture." for example, a movement of a piece on the chess board can be considered a permutation... permutations in a given sequence have a structure because you cannot necessarily go from one permutation to another without performing certain permutations in between. the result of this for chess is an arbitrary set of overlapping towers with some floors that can be interchanged ("i will hold off this move for a while,") others that cannot, etc, with the whole system interacting with another set of overlapping towers (the opponent's positions and potential series of moves)... of course, this is a vague description of how i perceive chess. in my mind things are kept as simple as possible. i think part of being good at anything involves finding a representation for it that one's brain can handle efficiently

that said, i never played chess seriously and mostly like having silly fun with with it. i am annoyed that you cannot kill your own pieces in standard chess, or call pawns pongs

[cut the grass]

i love me some chess. grew up playing it!

[Rice-Tactics]

What type do you suppose they tend to be?

Im sure theyre some sort of NT but was wondering if any certain type would be best suited to the game.

I def think they could be INTP, with their proclivity for analysis and logic, and ability to concentrate, but one thing I notice is that I sometimes find thinking about tactics in chess annoying and would much rather focus on strategy and wondered if this trait may give INTJs an advantage.

I'm pretty good overall but I can never beat my ESTP friend.

[s]

ENTPs are generals... they are more naturally inclined to be chess masters, I would think.

[Samurai Drifter]

Three out of the four members of my family are chess players.

My dad is INTJ, and he's a brilliant chess player. I'm not exactly sure of his USCF rating, but I think he qualifies for national master.

Next best is me. I think I'd probably be rated around 1200-1300 by the USCF, not sure how good that is for an 18 year old. I stand no chance against my dad, but I win 2/3 games against my brother, who's INTJ also. He's the worst of the chess players at home, but is pretty good, and is the best of all the people he plays against at his school.

As for the friends I've played... one is ESxP, and he sucks. He does better when making random moves than when he tries to think up a strategy. The other two I occasionally play are ISTJ/ISxJ respectively, and they're not very good either. I think someone with an N function is likely to be more of a natural at chess, because planning ahead is an absolutely vital part of the game.

[ImNotTooPopular]

I used to play chess in sixth grade, and I'd beat all my friends but one. I wouldn't be surprised if that one friend ended up an ENT.

Also, I bet playing since an early age allows someone to be one of those chess masterminds that plays on national and world level. I bet it's like perfect pitch. It was found that most people with perfect pitch started playing music at a very young age. Of course, high intelligence is probably a big factor in chess playing, too.

I found that I beat anyone who does plan and strategize. When we were kids my brother (now INTx) figured out the secret to why I was always beating him. It was because I was always plotting something. Just by acknowledging the fact that I always had a plan once the game got developed, he caught and diffused most of plans, and he started winning.

[sorabji_66]

i doubt it. can't see too many INTPs sitting there like a statue for 40 minutes waiting for an opponent to move.

so grateful that the internet game takes away the demand to just sit there quietly while playing.

[Tayshaun]

ISTJ.

They have the follow-through and the concentration power to become the best.

The most generally advantaged in the beginning (at amateur level) are probably all NT types.

[Samurai Drifter]

ISTJ.

They have the follow-through and the concentration power to become the best.

The most generally advantaged in the beginning (at amateur level) are probably all NT types.

I'm confused why some of you are saying that ISTJs are the best. Chess is practically INTJ: The Game. The entire thing is based around strategic thinking, making long-range plans, and looking moves ahead, which is much more natural for an N.

[mippus]

I'm confused why some of you are saying that ISTJs are the best. Chess is practically INTJ: The Game. The entire thing is based around strategic thinking, making long-range plans, and looking moves ahead, which is much more natural for an N.

Well, in the 20 years that I've played competitive chess, I have met quite a few excellent players (2200+) that turned out to be S's. A possible reasoning lies partly in what you describe above. Long-range strategy IS important, but so is a good feeling for tactics. However, I think both skills are probably best found in NTP's. (not that it made me succesful ;))
It is true, though, that the nature and even the image of the game is far more attractive to NT's...

[Gaupa]

ISTJ

Agree. Or at least IxTJ.

I suck at chess - don't have the patience to think so many moves ahead. Guess it's my hopeless "P".
Prefer games like Othello where you can solve your situation by improvising all the time (in those games I can even beat my INTJ friend, because she is too set on the plans she built earlier!).

[oblivion]

I would assume that INTJ would have the advantage, but INTP and INTJ would have to be pretty closely matched

[nonrandian]

in 6th grade i won a tournament held by my school that all students in my class (150) were forced to participate in. it was double-elimination but i didn't lose any matches.

*puts on shades

however, i tend to not be as cunning when playing against someone older/more experienced with the game. i've probably only played chess once a year for the last 6 or 7 years, so, yeah...

[ATPB]

I think INTJs are far more likely to be grandmasters, because, as has been mentioned, that level of chess requires huge amounts of practice and memorizing. However, if an INTP puts the hours in and that reaches that level, which is probably unlikely compared to an INTJ, I don't think they'd be at a disadvantage. Ti and Ne doesn't sound any less attractive (to me) than Ni and Te when it comes to chess.

[mgb]

What type do you suppose they tend to be?

Im sure theyre some sort of NT but was wondering if any certain type would be best suited to the game.

I def think they could be INTP, with their proclivity for analysis and logic, and ability to concentrate, but one thing I notice is that I sometimes find thinking about tactics in chess annoying and would much rather focus on strategy and wondered if this trait may give INTJs an advantage.


Good at chess, bad at life. Sounds like INTPs.

[nonrandian]

Good at chess, bad at life. Sounds like INTPs.

And what do you suppose being 'bad' at life is?

Not holding faith?

Not making the most money?

Not helping the most people? (i imagine you're a bit too ignorant to believe helping people can produce a good life)

You're idea of success is probably nothing like mine. It's our right to be individuals. I'd rather die knowing i led a good life than die decieving myself into thinking that i'd led a good one. Neh?

[nonrandian]

day,um... someone needs more bandwidth.

[Sojourner]

You want to delete the extras? You can access deletion from the editing screen...

[nonrandian]

ty

[mgb]

And what do you suppose being 'bad' at life is?

Not holding faith?

Not making the most money?

Not helping the most people? (i imagine you're a bit too ignorant to believe helping people can produce a good life)

You're idea of success is probably nothing like mine. It's our right to be individuals. I'd rather die knowing i led a good life than die decieving myself into thinking that i'd led a good one. Neh?

Thanks for making my point for me. I appreciate it.

[zhandao]

I think INTJs are far more likely to be grandmasters, because, as has been mentioned, that level of chess requires huge amounts of practice and memorizing. However, if an INTP puts the hours in and that reaches that level, which is probably unlikely compared to an INTJ, I don't think they'd be at a disadvantage. Ti and Ne doesn't sound any less attractive (to me) than Ni and Te when it comes to chess.I agree. Maybe Ni/Ne/Ti/Te can supply raw talent to a newbie in seeing 'X' possibilities ahead (it did for me), but it makes sense that seeing the 20 or 30 moves ahead like a grandmaster involves much more than raw Ni/Ne/Ti/Te (not that they don't help). Perhaps Si is also useful, in remembering all the moves/patterns the grandmaster has encountered throughout his thousands of games?

[nonrandian]

Thanks for making my point for me. I appreciate it.

I suppose your point really was that you are ingorant...

.. since of course an attack on a collective is obviously far worse than an attack on an individual. Indeed you have won. You have won my disrespect. Congradulations.

[Hustler]

lol_noobs

[mgb]

I suppose your point really was that you are ingorant...

.. since of course an attack on a collective is obviously far worse than an attack on an individual. Indeed you have won. You have won my disrespect. Congradulations.


Keep it in your pants, big guy.

Also, allow me to introduce you to firefox (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/). It'll change your life.

Have fun here. I think you're going to love it.

[mippus]

I agree. Maybe Ni/Ne/Ti/Te can supply raw talent to a newbie in seeing 'X' possibilities ahead (it did for me), but it makes sense that seeing the 20 or 30 moves ahead like a grandmaster involves much more than raw Ni/Ne/Ti/Te (not that they don't help). Perhaps Si is also useful, in remembering all the moves/patterns the grandmaster has encountered throughout his thousands of games?

I may be wrong, but I don't believe GM's see 20 or 30 moves ahead, unless if you refer to their theoretical preparation/knowledge. It becomes hard to discuss these matters without knowing the nature of the game and how people think in it. This is by no means meant as a reproach. I may be wrong in your case, zhandao, but I come across many people who reason upon a mythical image they hold about chess...
It is far more subtle than looking ahead.

[ATPB]

I agree. Maybe Ni/Ne/Ti/Te can supply raw talent to a newbie in seeing 'X' possibilities ahead (it did for me), but it makes sense that seeing the 20 or 30 moves ahead like a grandmaster involves much more than raw Ni/Ne/Ti/Te (not that they don't help). Perhaps Si is also useful, in remembering all the moves/patterns the grandmaster has encountered throughout his thousands of games?
In that case, the tertiary Si of INTPs would put them at an advantage, assuming experience and intelligence etc. are equal (and such a thing I believe is unlikely, so it remains in the theory baskest).


I may be wrong, but I don't believe GM's see 20 or 30 moves ahead, unless if you refer to their theoretical preparation/knowledge. It becomes hard to discuss these matters without knowing the nature of the game and how people think in it. This is by no means meant as a reproach. I may be wrong in your case, zhandao, but I come across many people who reason upon a mythical image they hold about chess...
It is far more subtle than looking ahead.

I remember discussing chess in an Artificial Intelligence class, where Kasparov moaned that Deep Blue 'made a human move', and was suspicious that there was a bit of cheating going on (this is probably woefully inaccurate, but that's how I've remembered it). The impression I got was that human players do indeed see far ahead, somehow, and that the pure number crunching of Deep Blue wasn't/isn't expected to be able to produce the same foresight. The obvious implication would be that Kasparov saw a hint of N from the machine, and it wasn't meant to happen in his eyes. Going by that, I don't think they 'see ahead' accurately, as such, but with such experience, know how to push the games into general positions from which they can gain an advantage.

I think that players of such a level obviously do see 'accurately' ahead as well, in that their tactical range is superior to others'. Perhaps not 20-30 though. A good experiment would be perhaps to write the notation for how they they think a game would pan it, while they play, seeing how accurately they can see ahead and how far they think it's reasonable to predict at different stages.

I would agree however, that many people often hold chess in an elevated platform over others games, when really the theory and strategy aren't as magical as they are led to believe.

[zhandao]

I may be wrong, but I don't believe GM's see 20 or 30 moves ahead, unless if you refer to their theoretical preparation/knowledge. It becomes hard to discuss these matters without knowing the nature of the game and how people think in it. This is by no means meant as a reproach. I may be wrong in your case, zhandao, but I come across many people who reason upon a mythical image they hold about chess...
It is far more subtle than looking ahead.I used to have an avid interest in chess in middle school and I read about the different chess champions over the years. Perhaps the number would be exaggerated for a typical grandmaster, but this is what is typically said in these books about champions like Kasparov, Karpov, etc. It wouldn't be directly at the opening, but by early-mid-game one would have a specific strategy of moves planned out, encompassing his opponent's moves in retaliation. There are analyses of games in basically every book, and in these there would always be remarks that showed how almost every move had seemed to have been planned out since the start (again, I don't mean right at the opening).

[Bradtv]

The best player I've gone up against was an XNTJ. He was a rather charismatic old man slipping into dementia. He was a teacher, genius, and a math nut. He explained his process was much like a computer program following an IF/THEN checklist.

I couldn't plan ahead many too many steps, let alone predict a strategy of my opponent. I've done better than most I've played in chess, getting fools mate a handful of times (helps to play the novices).

I played two kids (7-8 year olds) who were quite good and they each beat me once. One of them was probably because I was merciful and let him replay a move where he lost his queen. When he got cocky after the win however, we played again and I beat him quickly.


Edit: One of my 6th grade classes had a checkers tournament where I got up to the top. The final match was with this girl who, when reaching a point where sacrifices needed to be made, tried to invent a "skip turn" rule. The teacher was off doing something else and I was contesting the rule. "You can't skip turns" I said. When she wouldn't move, I asked her how many skips each player had. She said each had three. So in order to get things moving I said, "Okay, then I skip too." This really pissed her off, so we finally got the teacher over who explained you couldn't skip your turn. The match didn't seem to last long after that.

[Oculus Sinister]

Fischer having P-type is a ridiculous claim.

Key elements to playing high-level chess include abilities of logic, creativity, focus and knowledge assimilation. I believe there might be a trend toward introverted thinkers and a variety of the intuitives.

I disagree and I digress. Fischer had a purported IQ of 185+. With this level of intelligence, I think it is more than possible for Fischer to be a P. P is always seem as sloppy and loopy. But, when it comes to military theory and some of the greatest battle plan ideas, it was your NTP who devised the damn thing and your ETJ who carried it out. Also, I think the INTP is concerned with the "spatiality of things". So you are dealingg with a guy who can see the board in his head and walk around in it much like Einstein when he went on his mind journeys. I think also if Fischer was a 5w6 like it is claimed, the logic in his mind was very structured. More than likely, the guy was thinking 10 steps ahead in every situation of his life.

[Camelopardalis]

I disagree and I digress. Fischer had a purported IQ of 185+. With this level of intelligence, I think it is more than possible for Fischer to be a P. P is always seem as sloppy and loopy. But, when it comes to military theory and some of the greatest battle plan ideas, it was your NTP who devised the damn thing and your ETJ who carried it out. Also, I think the INTP is concerned with the "spatiality of things". So you are dealingg with a guy who can see the board in his head and walk around in it much like Einstein when he went on his mind journeys. I think also if Fischer was a 5w6 like it is claimed, the logic in his mind was very structured. More than likely, the guy was thinking 10 steps ahead in every situation of his life.

Really? I thought NTJ's are known more or less as strategists... I don't think intelligence really matters when it comes down to J or P. Both preferences have intelligent beings. In projects, I'm usually the one who shapes the whole thing and my minions would make it work :D Of course, I check every single bit of it and I catch flaws like a radar. Flawed work, especially in areas such as spelling, punctuation and obvious grammar irks me to no end. It annoys me greatly when someone writes a paper on topic A and starts on A. Within the paper, there are some references to topic B, and they modulate to topic A+B, then ends up writing a conclusion about B. I play chess the P way though... Maybe its because of that I win everyone whom I've played against. I would observe their move, THEN make my choice and I never plan my strategy from beginning to end in this game. I'm borderline on the J-P preference. One could say I'm spontaneous and rigid at the same time. My plans always include all the possibilities of things that could unhinge my course of action and then decide what to do. My plans look like a family tree with one parent (starting point), but always ends back on one individual (objective), with a very fat middle of all the events that could occur and things to do when they happen. I do this so I won't stray off course, but needless to say much precious time was wasted.

[Ferrus]

Fischer does seem an INTP, but the Russians, Karpov, Kasparov and so forth all strike me as rather INTJ.

[mippus]

I wouldn't be sure Kasparov is an introvert...

[zago]

I think Ni would be the best function for chess. If four relatively beginner chess players played, I think Se would be the worst, Si would try to depend on predetermined strategies or pawn defenses, Ne would look at big picture changes he needed to make in his position to keep the opponent on defense, and Ni would be more aware of how his opponent would respond to his individual moves.

When I played a few games with my Si mom recently (we have the same level of experience), she kept trying to depend on the zig-zag pawn defense. It's a good defense, but I decided I didn't like it a long time ago because it cramps me in too much. I mainly tried to get my big pieces out fast, and get them in attacking positions fast. This somehow worked, and I pretty much always had her playing defense. My tactic from then on was just to make sure she didn't get a chance to put me in check.

Playing an Ni would have been tougher, I think. Ni would look at how I would perceive his moves, and possibly be better at trapping me. I feel like I could do that, but possibilities would overwhelm me, and I would take forever to move.

[Dark Razor]

I remember I read somewhere that high level chess players rely mostly on the part of the brain that holds memories and experiences, while beginners rely more on the thinking part of the brain to analyze new information. So my guess is that even if your naturally good at chess, you still need to memorize a lot of moves and situations. Knowing many situations and positions from memory should allow you to respond to common situations quickly, and focus your actual attention further into the future than you otherwise could.

here is a short article about it:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1480365.stm