Strategy

[deeess]

Hey guys - I am new to the thread but really interesting to read all the posts - nice to realise I am not the 'only one' who sees the world in a certain way.

Quick question - despite the theory that INTPs are meant to be logical thinkers, do people struggle to think in a strategic manner? The most obvious example is chess. Clearly a logical game but I really struggle to develop a strategy on how to use the different pieces in tandem to achieve the end goal. Similar pattern on other strategy games (eg Risk)

Any thoughts?

 

[Dissident]

yeah, thats strange. Im not good at that either, i tend to figure things out as i go(or try atleast ). I guess its because we are P, we dont like planing things and sticking to it strictly, but to improvise and have fun in the process.
Oh, and welcome by the way!

 

[ThreeMostAlways]

nice to realise I am not the 'only one' who sees the world in a certain way.

I know what you mean. I thought I was border lining insanity for quite some time.


Beyond that I cannot relate. I'm surprisingly [it was a surprise to me] quite good at chess.
It's possibly because I choose [or usually try really hard] to not second-guess myself.

"What's the point of thinking twice anyway? The only possible outcome of double-thinking is that you invariably end up negating whatever it was motivating you in the first place. Thinking twice is just admitting that you are somehow instinctively stupid and repetition is the only thing that can save you from yourself."
--J. Kilmer-Purcell
I am Not Myself These Days

 

[Ermine]

I know what you mean. Though NTs are supposed to be good at chess, I'm not incredibly good, at least not against my dad. I'm much better at strategy when I'm away from the situation.

 

[Radioactive_Springtime]

Im horrible at strategy in any game except Red Alert II: Yuri's Revenge

 

[loveofreason]

If my history of Risk victories are any indication, then yes, I am capable of strategic planning.

Either that or I have a certain way with the dice

 

[Aphasia]

I'm good at strategy games (most board/ card games in general), although I'm not amazing at chess. The bit about where you have to memorize moves to become better effectively deterred me from putting further effort into it (if I want to enter competitions that pit pure memorization skills against others, I'll take an exam). Games with hidden elements (like scrabble) appeal to me more (yes, scrabble also features lots of memorizing, but at least it's not as bad as chess).

 

[vic]

I can play chess but by no means am I good. Part of it is because I simply think board games are boring. As far as chess is concerned, the good players become good through practice and memorization. When they see a particular piece at a spot, they can probably see 3-4 moves ahead of it.

I've never been into Risk and Chess type board games. On the PC, I hated Sim City and Civilization. However, I enjoyed Command and Conquer and Starcraft/Warcraft. I'd have to say that's probably due to me being impatient and just want to blow things up quicker

 

[Frosty]

I've played chess a lot, ever since I was a kid, and have progressively gotten better at it. Chess required a number of different kinds of skills in order to play well, notably pattern recognition and something I would roughly call spatial awareness (the ability to understand how objects stand in relation to other objects near them, manipulate them in your mind, then visualise/assess the outcome of the new spatial relationship which is generated -- similar to pattern recognition, but not the same thing).

A few years ago a friend came to our chess club and performance a blindfold chess simul in which he played 6 opponents simultaneously whilst blindfolded (and won 5 of the 6 games). That's an extreme form of spatial awareness I suppose. He's an INTJ. I asked him later what he "saw" ... did he see a picture of the pieces on each board in his mind, kind of like a photographic memory, so that he could move the pieces on a visual board in his imagination. His response was "No, its not like that, its more that I just 'feel' how the pieces are related to one another". Some very strong chess players (International Master level and above) have this blindfold ability to play, but mere mortals like me only last 5-10 moves into a blindfold game before we lose the thread of where the pieces are on the board.

 

[Linsejko]

Frosty, that's amazing...

If you've ever heard of "Go", imagine that blindfolded.

I still have trouble imagining blindfolded Rubik's cube solving.

I enjoy Chess & Go (And risk, though I have a love/hate with that game because of the dice), but I have a harder time learning to go back to the basics and memorize the openings and familiar positions. I just like to figure it out as a I go. With Go it is a bit easier, because I can just play it out, and then get a real person to teach me online, and learn the openings that way- I can find the study of them fascinating by considering the implications and scenarios resulting from the shape, instead of just counting it as rote drudgery.

Still, INTPs are known for a desire to be 'competent', but not caring enough to practice to master a thing. Competency is very important to us, it is said, mastery not worth it.

--

I also have to say I spent a year straight having friends come over to have C&C Tiberian Sun LAN parties (4 players) when I was around 12. Very fond memories, would love to do that again sometime for old time's sake; they really were great games.

(Still have never played starcraft, though have watched friends play.)

.L

 

[Vrecknidj]

I know INTPs that can't spell very well, I know INTPs who are really awful at math, I know INTPs who are bad a chess...

I know INTPs who are devoutly religious, I know INTP atheists. I know INTPs who are excellent artists and find painting a great outlet for their ideas. I know INTPs who cannot draw stick figures.

We're all different, even INTPs from one another.

Dave

 

[Olba]

The only thing I see in chess is a boring game that is way too experience-centric. I see the same in most card games that I see people playing. Heck, even Magic the Gathering or Yu-Gi-Oh! seem way too experience or money dependent to me.

How do I cope with that? I start thinking about alternative forms to the games. Sometimes I start from scratch, sometimes I take the original work and add things to it.

For example, I would propose a chess game where you can sacrifice buttons in order to give another button special properties. This opens up a whole new can of strategies. If anything, I would like to see a game where someone plays with an altered rule set while the other plays with the classical setting.

Also, it would cut down the amount of elitism in chess. After all, it's been proven that chess is about pattern recognition. Well, if you add new elements, the amount of patterns can be as high as ten times what it used to be, making pattern recognition less of an advantage, therefore giving new comers a better chance to shine.

It's also a great past time, trying to think up potential scenarios and the flaws.

Also, I have thought up some games that are simplistic and all about risk-taking and probability. I doubt anyone wants me to go into detail about them here, but it's really, really simple.

Since I own several decks of cards, I tend to prefer developing games that only require at most a 55-card deck. This does not, of course, completely close the chance of additional equipment, such as multiple decks or dice.

So basically, I don't like overly-strategic things. To get rid of it, I propose an alternative set of rules that makes room for more strategies or a less strategic environment.

Damn, if I just had a similar interest in programming, I could be something great.

 

[Jesin]

Ooh! Ooh! I know!

This thing!

 

[Yank]

Quick question - despite the theory that INTPs are meant to be logical thinkers, do people struggle to think in a strategic manner? The most obvious example is chess.

I enjoy strategy and problem solving, but not when it's versus a human opponent, so when it comes to chess, I don't find it compelling enough to invest the time and energy.

Cracking search engine algorithms or even analyzing fractional times in a horse race are much more interesting as they are (generally) constant and you will eventually crack the code (and then, of course, move on to something else...).

 

[zxc]

I'm utterly fascinated by strategy - whether it's strategic games, or the battles of great generals, or even game theory.

I used to play chess at a tournament level, where I actually competed in the Australian Junior Chess Championships a few years ago. Chess has always
interested me. I like to play blindfold games against my friends at school, and it's always difficult (because I sort of coach them - in an informal way).

I had a big problem with time management in my tournament games. I would over-analyse positions, especially ones that have perhaps two or three equally good possibilities (that's the infamous INTP indecisiveness for you!). As a result, I often got into major time-trouble, making the finale of most of my games spectacular to watch (ironically, or perhaps logically - if you think about it - I'm a very good speed-chess player). I suppose my perfectionism has something to do with it.

I've always loved to make theories about games, and about competitive things in general (way before I knew there was such a thing as 'game theory'). I've always had a fear of computers being able to 'work everything out' in many games, and I dread the day that computers work out chess (Capablanca and Fischer predicted this would happen).

I'm also an avid gamer (primarily fps games like CSS), and love to play table-tennis.

Chess is so complex - I would encourage all you INTPs out there to try it out :P

 

[Aphasia]

I'm a (not very good) rts gamer, which counts for something, I think. Table tennis is fun: you need brains and skill to truly excel in this (I can outthink my opponents, but my reflexes leave a lot to be desired).

During chess, I can predict my opponent's moves up to three moves ahead (in the mid/ endgame). Problem is, since my opponents just memorize a set of moves at the beginning, which I don't bother to, they usually get to defeat me anyway. Besides, I play chess for fun, and memorizing patterns that aren't your own to defeat and opponent with feels cheap (for me).

 

[zxc]

I'm a (not very good) rts gamer, which counts for something, I think. Table tennis is fun: you need brains and skill to truly excel in this (I can outthink my opponents, but my reflexes leave a lot to be desired).

During chess, I can predict my opponent's moves up to three moves ahead (in the mid/ endgame). Problem is, since my opponents just memorize a set of moves at the beginning, which I don't bother to, they usually get to defeat me anyway. Besides, I play chess for fun, and memorizing patterns that aren't your own to defeat and opponent with feels cheap (for me).

Opening theory is something I'm not very interested in, either. However, once you know the general principles to keep in mind when playing the opening, you should be fine. I do, however, love learning openings, but not in the memorisation sort of way - I mean the ideas, strategy, tactics, patterns, themes, all that are involved in particular openings. Employing 'sister-openings', like the Slav and Caro-Kann, will also help you in saving a lot of time in opening preparation, because they have similar themes, strategy, pawn-structure, etc.

 

[Wisp]

Risk is fun, but when I lose a critical point with my friend (dice) and lose the majority (dice) of my people taking a key point to my strategy and then not having enough troops left to defend myself(dice) ... Yeah, Risk isn't that fun. Stratego is great, and I'm a great chess player, although I never have a plan when I go into the game... I suppose it makes me more adaptable in the long run...

 

[zxc]

Chess has been analysed to such an extent, and thus there is so much theory about all stages and facets of the game, that a 'chess-player', even if only a beginner, will almost always beat a 'non-chess-player', unless of course that non-chess-player is a chess prodigy (0.0001% chance).

 

[Kumori]

Chess is a very fun game, I encourage all INTP's to try learning it. Also a game I've been wanting to try for a while is Go, any one around here know it? I'd like to learn at least a beginner's level of it.

The only thing I see in chess is a boring game that is way too experience-centric. I see the same in most card games that I see people playing. Heck, even Magic the Gathering or Yu-Gi-Oh! seem way too experience or money dependent to me.

Heh, it's not expensive if you play a beginner tournament, then use your INTP skills to dominate it, win cards and then preceed to win more experienced tournaments!

 

[zxc]

Was reading about Go today; Go looks a lot of fun! Now where do I find a Go set....

 

[orion119net]

I'm actually really bad at chess. I just don't take the game seriously, and if I don't take it seriously, I don't try to win.

Though I'm really good at Poker for some reason...

 

[zxc]

Go is awesome! Played a game with my friend (Kumori on these forums).

 

[Kumori]

It was really interesting, and very fun! For those wondering, zxc kicked my ass .

 

[CowSavior]

Hey guys - I am new to the thread but really interesting to read all the posts - nice to realise I am not the 'only one' who sees the world in a certain way.

Quick question - despite the theory that INTPs are meant to be logical thinkers, do people struggle to think in a strategic manner? The most obvious example is chess. Clearly a logical game but I really struggle to develop a strategy on how to use the different pieces in tandem to achieve the end goal. Similar pattern on other strategy games (eg Risk)

Any thoughts?

I have trouble thinking strategically, but I end up doing strategy based things naturally.

Unless the strategy is formulated, then I have no problem at all.