Chess

[Hammo]

Hello fellow INTPites.

Three of the items in my never-ending list of personal intersts are myers-briggs types, chess and venn diagrams. It thus follows that I am interested in whether people who play chess are oft of a certain MBT.
I started a thread on chess.com to try seek an answer to this question (http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/myers-briggs-types-and-chess) and was somewhat surprised to find that the most common type for chess players was INTPs (I had thought ISTJs would be more suitable)
The logical next question to follow 'How many chess players are INTP's?' would be 'How many INTP's are chess players?'

In essence, I am asking how many of you guys play chess and how much?
Personally, I'm not that great (my elo rating is only around 1100), but I have aspirations to play several games a day until I get much better.

 

[ApostateAbe]

I have played chess on and off and built up some intermediate skill, starting from when I was very young. I think a bunch of us here are chess players. I don't know why we don't have an online chess club.

 

[Cheeseumpuffs]

I don't play very regularly nor am I very good, but if there's a chess board nearby and someone willing to play I'd be happy to play. So I guess yes and no?

 

[Meer]

The only time I've enjoyed chess was with made-up rules. Kind of like Calvinball.

 

[Hadoblado]

I would like a chessclub very muchly. I used to play in high school a fair bit, but not so much any more.

 

[kantor1003]

When you asked your question on the chess forum, you also have to take into account that you asked it on a forum. One should expect more introverts than what would hold true for the whole chess playing population for example.

Regarding your question, I've played some chess back when I had some sparring partners, and I probably would have still if it weren't for the fact that I have no one to play with (I'm not much into playing in a virtual environment, but I guess it's something one can get used to. When I played chessmaster, I would always have a real board beside me so I could get a more sturdy grip on what was happening).. I've also tried out go and arimaa, but both where too "open" for me to get into it. I like to have more solid boundaries as I think it allows for more thought through strategic play earlier than what would be the case with more complex games like the two aforementioned.

 

[ElvenVeil]

I play chess, though on unregular basis. I would say that I am decent at chess, but only as long as time pressure is not present.

I love chess, but sadly there are not so many people that play it, that I know irl . I have enjoyed both chesscube and chess.com, but playing online takes the edge of the joy off I think. Ths simple fact of sitting with a wooden board is part of the game to me.

 

[crippli]

I played a lot when I was a kid and grew up. But it's one of those things, together with many other things I used to enjoy, that I've stopped doing due to lack of motivation all around. I still do a game against the computer or on the phone occasionally.

I don't know about the mbti type. Still investigating.

 

[speiss]

My father taught me chess when I was little, and to this day I pride myself at capturing him in a stalemate. Whether he let me out of pity or exhaustion because my child-self was not inclined to give up, I'll probably never know.
I actually enjoy chess very much, but I always feel like when I play it there's always some strategy I'm missing, and as a terrible, terrible strategist I usually make very impulsive moves with little plan for them after said moves, which usually cost me the game fairly quickly.
In fact, I once had a friend over who didn't know how to play chess so I taught him, and the next game we played after the preliminary one, he won.
>.>

 

[Words]

I think chess is more of an Introverted Perception game, which is either Si or Ni. It's an Si game because you can pretty much passively memorize certain patterns or data and use those patterns to win. Memorizing these patterns requires less thinking or Ti. It's Ni because each time a player moves a chess piece, the context of the game is being shifted, which means that it requires a cognitive process that is attuned with a consistently shifting environment, and Ni is all about envisioning new ways to look at things in order to immediately adapt the perception to the change in reality. So I guess you can say that an Ni-type would have an earlier advantage in chess, while an Si type requires experience to be good with it

The way I play chess is heavily through Ne assisted slightly by Ti. I move chess pieces without much regard for the greater context because I just want to see what happens in the short-run. It, of course, ends up with me losing. In conclusion, I don't think chess is for Ti-Ne types, unless they've played a ton of games or they're simply geniuses.

I forgot to answer the question. I rarely play chess, perhaps because of what I mentioned in my 2nd paragraph. Not enough Ne in it.

 

[speiss]

I find it silly to not play something because of the lack of a certain personality trait!
I feel like too many overanalyze themselves and their capabilities to the point where they restrict themselves of things that they otherwise would enjoy and perhaps excel at with enough practice.
Auburn took the time to explain Ne and Ni and Ti and the like to me, but I'm still afraid I don't have a complete grasp on it. I'll have to re-read the post.

 

[blarg]

There are two main elements of chess: long-term strategy and short-term tactics. Of course, anyone committed and/or talented enough can excel at either, but in general Ni + Te users are better at long-term strategy. They can examine what is going on, put together everything into one plan, and then execute it. On the other hand, Ti + Ne users are better at the tactics because the tactics are more like math problems; they consist of intricate manipulations that manifest through Ne, and then Ti thinks through these and helps with the patterns.

I'm pretty good at the game, but I'm far from being a master at it. Right now I do not play as often as I used to, simply because I reached a point where competitive play stopped being fun.

 

[Words]

I find it silly to not play something because of the lack of a certain personality trait!

It's not that you do something because of your own volition, it's morelike you do something because it is in your nature. and I don't think it's difficult to conclude that our hobbies are tied in with our personalities. If you looked at the sample the OP presents in his link: "9 INTPs, 5 ISTJs, 3 INTJs, 2 ENFP, 1 ENTP and 1 ISFJ." It becomes quite easy to assume that chess is an introverted game. Everything we do is caused by a preference, type could be one of those preferences. And choosing games is a scenario wherein one can really 'choose' naturally, without the fear for security or without fear of failing, so it really brings out cognitive preferences on the table. Free-will could be there, but playing is something wherein you seek immediate pleasures. So no, as much I'd 'love' to watch soap operas, I'd rather write this thing on the internet. I also enjoy chess when I play them, but i don't think it's something I can be immediately passionate about. I think there's a big difference between just trying out things and being really interested in something.

I feel like too many overanalyze themselves and their capabilities to the point where they restrict themselves of things that they otherwise would enjoy and perhaps excel at with enough practice.

"Enough practice" sounds like work. Why should games be about work? For me, it contradicts the very point of "games."

 

[speiss]

It's not that you do something because of your own volition, it's morelike you do something because it is in your nature.

But you.. you do do things because of your own volition. There is "nature," yes, and what one would do without influence, but the thing is, there are outside forces that take part in what you choose to do and what you don't choose to do. But that's a different matter altogether!

I think there's a big difference between just trying out things and being really interested in something.

That's not really what I'm saying, see. That's wonderful if you're not interested in soap operas, nor are you genuinely interested in chess. My point is that if one is genuinely interested in something, they shouldn't refrain from pursuing it simply because they don't "do well," especially when compared to others. For example, if I really loved music, I loved playing the piano, say, but I frequently encountered piano players who only had a "natural" talent, while it was something I was struggling with as a beginner, I shouldn't give up hope because I can't play as well as those who have a knack. One should pursue what they like!

"Enough practice" sounds like work. Why should games be about work? For me, it contradicts the very point of "games."

With games, some people like games enough that they would like to excel at them. Sports are examples. Yes, people may gain immediate pleasure whilst playing them, but when there's the factor of competition, "work" comes into play. Perhaps someone would like to win at a game of chess. If one truly enjoys a hobby, then it's only "natural," as you say, to wish to improve. It's not common for someone to remain on the same basic level of any activity and be satisfied forever. What I'm saying is that chess, if you like it and enjoy it, you should play it, even if you're terrible. Because you like it. I'm not saying "force" interests, I'm saying "pursue them no matter what your abilities."

 

[Words]

But you.. you do do things because of your own volition. There is "nature," yes, and what one would do without influence, but the thing is, there are outside forces that take part in what you choose to do and what you don't choose to do. But that's a different matter altogether!

You're talking from a first-person POV while I'm talking from third-person POV. I'm not saying you can't choose, I'm just stating the fact that people do follow their natures, and that it's not silly to follow natures because it happens in reality. Reality is not silly, is it? Regardless, is it any less silly from following an arbitrary value?

That's not really what I'm saying, see. That's wonderful if you're not interested in soap operas, nor are you genuinely interested in chess.

hm..."wonderful."

My point is that if one is genuinely interested in something, they shouldn't refrain from pursuing it simply because they don't "do well," especially when compared to others. For example, if I really loved music, I loved playing the piano, say, but I frequently encountered piano players who only had a "natural" talent, while it was something I was struggling with as a beginner, I shouldn't give up hope because I can't play as well as those who have a knack. One should pursue what they like!

I don't disagree with this, but it's not like I mentioned this. Doing "well" on something has nothing to do with *naturally* preferring that something. (Emphasis on natural) I realize that people are motivated by external standards but this is not related to natural preferences. (except perhaps on the degree of tendency to be affected)

With games, some people like games enough that they would like to excel at them. Sports are examples. Yes, people may gain immediate pleasure whilst playing them, but when there's the factor of competition, "work" comes into play. Perhaps someone would like to win at a game of chess. If one truly enjoys a hobby, then it's only "natural," as you say, to wish to improve. It's not common for someone to remain on the same basic level of any activity and be satisfied forever. What I'm saying is that chess, if you like it and enjoy it, you should play it, even if you're terrible. Because you like it. I'm not saying "force" interests, I'm saying "pursue them no matter what your abilities."

I don't think it's natural to wish to improve. That seems like the kind of motivation that stems from an external social standard, from things such as competition. Or perhaps it can come from internal values, self-determination.

 

[speiss]

You're talking from a first-person POV while I'm talking from third-person POV.

But I'm... but I'm not. You see, first person entails speaking with "I", from your own eyes. Here I was using "you", which is very commonly construed as third-person in the English language, interchangeable frequently for "one" or "he or she".

Reality is not silly, is it?

Well! Laughter was certainly welcome for me at nearly 1 in the morning.

I don't disagree with this, but it's not like I mentioned this.

Well yes, but the reason I mentioned it was because I was explaining what I was talking about in the first place!

I don't think it's natural to wish to improve. That seems like the kind of motivation that stems from an external social standard, from things such as competition. Or perhaps it can come from internal values, self-determination.

Perhaps, actually, now that you mention it! It was a silly thing to assume that all human beings have the innate desire to get better at the things they like doing. In fact, it might as well be the opposite, as unchangeable routine is a very common desire.. albeit perhaps not "natural". This "natural" idea that you speak of, I have to say, I can't pinpoint exactly what is natural in someone and what is not. Following a passion based on a personality trait, that personality trait isn't natural in itself because it was influenced by outside forces. And following the passion or interest or what have you is influenced by outside sources. Nothing we do is ever "natural", nothing is without influence. Before you said:

I realize that people are motivated by external standards but this is not related to natural preferences. (except perhaps on the degree of tendency to be affected)

and you say "the tendency to be affected" as if it is completely irrelevant when it comes to "natural preferences," as if it's something that only occurs once in a while. It isn't! External factors play a large role in our every day decisions, and although things are innate and unchangeable sometimes within the inner workings of our minds, these things are numbered. People's minds change all the time, and there is no natural path, no fated path, no solid path that people follow down in life. There are few natural things within the mind of a human being, and these things are apparent when one looks through history. They're things like our needs and desires, like the need to be loved and the desire to live, and in turn these things fuel the ever-present traits of selfishness and greed. But as for personality, nothing is set in stone. Therefore to say that "external standards" are not related to "natural preferences" is a silly thing to say indeed, because who has a natural preference anyway? There's no such thing as a completely natural preference, except for perhaps animalistic things like sexuality. We are shaped by our experiences. I would assume that babies prefer things all other babies do, unless their environment influenced them otherwise.

 

[Words]

But I'm... but I'm not. You see, first person entails speaking with "I", from your own eyes. Here I was using "you", which is very commonly construed as third-person in the English language, interchangeable frequently for "one" or "he or she".

Maybe "first vs third POV's" wasn't a great way to express what I meant. My point is simply that I think you were presenting your thoughts on motivation in a way a person would experience it. If you look at it that way, you'd acknowledge all motivations, natural tendencies and values or also known as "outside forces that take part in what you choose to do and what you don't choose to do." My point of view on the other hand is focused on the existence of "natural tendencies", regardless of any other form of motivation a person would experience. I don't care about values, because I'm not looking at it.

I'd like to point out that I have now presented the idea that what you meant by "outside forces that affect your choices" falls under the umbrella of "values."

This "natural" idea that you speak of, I have to say, I can't pinpoint exactly what is natural in someone and what is not. Following a passion based on a personality trait, that personality trait isn't natural in itself because it was influenced by outside forces. And following the passion or interest or what have you is influenced by outside sources. Nothing we do is ever "natural", nothing is without influence.

Personality is an all-encompassing word, yes. I'm not talking about personality, I'm talking about temperament.

Before you said...and you say "the tendency to be affected" as if it is completely irrelevant when it comes to "natural preferences," as if it's something that only occurs once in a while. It isn't! External factors play a large role in our every day decisions, and although things are innate and unchangeable sometimes within the inner workings of our minds, these things are numbered. People's minds change all the time, and there is no natural path, no fated path, no solid path that people follow down in life. There are few natural things within the mind of a human being, and these things are apparent when one looks through history. They're things like our needs and desires, like the need to be loved and the desire to live, and in turn these things fuel the ever-present traits of selfishness and greed. But as for personality, nothing is set in stone. Therefore to say that "external standards" are not related to "natural preferences" is a silly thing to say indeed, because who has a natural preference anyway? There's no such thing as a completely natural preference, except for perhaps animalistic things like sexuality. We are shaped by our experiences. I would assume that babies prefer things all other babies do, unless their environment influenced them otherwise.

What I said was delivered on certain assumptions, so I can understand your em...line of thinking. The Je function is a function that is largely influenced by external standards, but it is more like a box of a certain shape but can be filled with different things depending on its experiences, resulting into several personalities. The box + item combination changes but the shape of the box remains the same. Also, just to clarify. We are now talking about whether there is a natural side to personality or not? Also, whether one can change type?

 

[Hammo]

"Enough practice" sounds like work. Why should games be about work? For me, it contradicts the very point of "games."

I'd agree with you there. It's reasonable to avoid "playing" chess, the game, because you are naturally uninclined to do so. However, that's no reason to not "train" in Chess, the sport, by practicing and studying.

 

[Words]

I'd agree with you there. It's reasonable to avoid "playing" chess, the game, because you are naturally uninclined to do so. However, that's no reason to not "train" in Chess, the sport, by practicing and studying.

As much as the burden of proof lies on those who would argue for the existence of something, the burden of meaning lies on those who favor action. "Why?", not "Why not."

 

[A22]

I don't have patience to think of every freaking move and it's consequences. I'm really impulsive when playing chess - so yeah, I'm not very good.

 

[unpwned]

Well I dont really know how good I am anymore. My grandpa got me into chess in 6th grade and I ended up beating him in a legitimate game in two weeks. He was mad but also astounded at the same time. In fact when I said check mate he responded with "no its not" I then looked over the board and covered all tracks and said " im pretty sure it is" Took him 30 mins before he finally admitted it haha. After that I got into it at school competitively. I was chess champion both years in middle school and the two years I was in high school. I never went to any big competitions so I never faced anyone outside of my schools. My weakness in chess was my lack of concentration if the other person took to long I would lose intrest and mess up. This is where speed chess was my thing

 

[Vladimir]

Yeah I play, I'm 1400-1600 rating depending where I play. Started to play seriously this year in my school chess club. Sorry for digging this up, but I am also intrigued by the INTP-Chess connection. I know that Garry Kasparov, world chess champion for more than a decade, perhaps the best of the century, is an INTP. He also has an estimated IQ of 190!

 

[Distant]

My father taught me to play when I was a child, and we kept playing occasionally until a few summers ago, when I beat him for the first time. After that we played more frequently, and as I mastered the game more, I started enjoying it more.
Also, I've played a lot last year, before I started university, combining weed and outdoor chess on a semi-daily basis with a good friend of mine. It let us both to do obvious and frequent mistakes, but it was still enjoyable and it trained us intellectually, I like to think. We even made a tent outside my apartment so we could smoke & play regardless of the weather.

My friend and I had many conversations about chess too, and we concluded that there's basicly two ways to be good at chess. One is through analytic skill, for predicting consequences of your own actions (intuition), and the other would be through memorization of past experiences(sensing). I suppose then, that intuitive types are better suited than sensers if there is no timing, and opposite if there is.

For the record, I am INTP and my friend is XSTJ

 

[NinjaSurfer]

smoking out a tent and playing chess sound like a great time.

 

[redbaron]

I play chess. I played every day with my great grandfather when I was about 2-5, then with my grandfather for many more years.

I played my teachers on occasion at school, and I bought a computerized chess set when I was about 14. It's fun to practice with, but ultimately it's just not the same as a wooden board.

For my 21st I got a really nice chess set, hand carved, I thought it was awesome. Not normally into material things and decorations, but this is something I'm proud to own. Maybe it's the nostalgia. Anyway I'll play on the site, not sure if I'm good enough to compete with the people playing online but we'll see.

 

[Intellect]

Another regular player here. Started when I was young (4 or 5) and used to play with my brother often.

Once I got to high school, my best friends (INTP) and I started playing all the time (online and off). I'd say my rating is around 1400 / 1500.

My interest in the game comes and goes. There was a period last year where I was playing at least 10 - 20 games of speed chess in addition to 3 or 4 regular-timed games every single day. My roommate at the time and I would always play while eating breakfast/dinner and we'd setup a tactical puzzle every day on a separate board and see who could solve it first.

Lately I'm just playing a few times a week online.

 

[PhoenixRising]

I'm spoiled with tri-dimensional chess (yeah, as in Star Trek). It adds a lot of possibilities to the game. I'm not that good at it, but I'll put up a fight until my king is the only piece left on the board...

 

[SMO]

Also learned chess at an early age, played a lot when I was young. When I went to college, I was friends with the president of the chess club, I never joined, but did beat him on our 4th game.

 

[Traianus]

A lot of interesting answers in this thread. I didn't learn the game until after I left home. I used to play a lot, but not so much recently. A couple of months ago, I played someone that thought they were pretty good to have it end in a stalemate. I'd like to play more than I do.

 

[Obrens]

I opened the thread. Read the OP and a few other posts. I scrolled through the rest. I still see no Venn diagrams!

 

[Dr. Freeman]

Knightmare Chess. It makes an already fun game crazy fun.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knightmare_Chess