Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Myers-Briggs Types and Chess


  • 2 years ago · Quote · #81

    dodgecharger1968

    I'm an ENTP. I'm not the loudest person around--but I am around the club! And everyone knows they can distract me by starting up an interesting conversation near me... I have a reputation for unorthodox openings and playing almost purely positional middlegames. Even my "respectable" openings are highly asymmetrical: Reti system, Nimzo, QID... Calculation can't be avoided, but I generally "feel" the squares and the pressure on them, rather than counting, and I put pieces "where they need to be" more than follow specific middlegame plans. My endgame sucks, partially because I focus more on getting a good, complex middlegame than a favorable endgame, and partially because it's BORING. I make speculative material sacrifices to improve my position more often than other players at my level (class B), and am far more likely to sacrifice excess material in a middlegame attack than I am to sit on it through a comfortable endgame. Also, I love analyzing games by discussing possibilities with strong players, and I think I learn a lot more from that than by reading books (which I also do).

  • 2 years ago · Quote · #82

    linuxblue1

    Anyone who takes a Myers Briggs Test is crazy. Anyone who administers one is:

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #83

    Caronag

    INTP here. I thought there would be more INTJ players, maybe because Bobby Fischer has such a big impact on chess perception as a pure INTJ. But I think again and see much chess masters of the past and present as INTP (Kasparov, Karpov, maybe Carlsen). Of course it is all interpretation and we could not know how they really are/were. Here is my take on the results:

    Introversion is not essential to be a good chess player, in my opinion, but I think much introvert people are attracted to this type of activity. It is thus understandable to see more introvert players.

    Intuition, on the other hand, is quite useful when you struggle to find a good recovery or a suprising attack in a tense position. Sensing would be better when it comes to knowing patterns and perhaps reacting quickly in rapid games. I still feel intuition would be slightly superior in chess but that's my opinion.

    As of thinking, it is quite obvious that we should see a majority of chess players with it, althought it doesn't mean you cannot have emotions and play chess.

    Perception/Judgement would be the most diverse category regarding chess because good players could be either way. Perceptive players would imagine complex schemes and positions to blow the opponent defense while judging players might have a stronger sense of "correctness" regarding their own pawn structures and development. If you see a player say "you might have played this or that with different results" they are perceptive I think while someone saying "this was a bad move, Xyz is clearly winning here" would be more of a judging player. 

    INTP, INTJ and perhaps ISTX are the personalities we should expect seing in chess players but, again, it is just another test where the results may easily be far from reality. So nobody should be discouraged by these kind of classifications. If you like to play chess, it is still the strongest indicator that you should play it.

  • 20 months ago · Quote · #84

    dodgecharger1968

    Between my MBTI judgment and my experience playing people I know well enough to type, I would say S helps a lot with memorizing opening lines, with playing endgames, and with utilizing traps and standard tactics.  N is better for positional middlegames and strange positions.  The TP combination signifies "introverted thinking" (Ti), which is probably best suited to finding the best move, while the TJ combination signifies "extroverted thinking" (Te), which is probably better at spotting potential tactical combinations

  • 8 months ago · Quote · #85

    MamaBear22

    ISTP here.  Took MBTI / Strong's  twice.  Was in chess club in school.  Now pushing 50 and never get tired of it.  I do better when I am not eating and playing chess at the same time.  But i hardly have time so play during lunch and supper.  Live in the 700 -800s blitzing.  I think my functional stack keeps me from taking it too seriously and the tertiary Ni probably doesn't help.   I am Ti dominant with auxiliary Se.  The introversion probably keeps me coming back for more.  I am betting on alot of Ni's here.  Sis is an Ni and lots of fun to "take apart and put back together" but I have never been able to "fix" her.  She likes chess too but won't play with me.  Says I talk too much.  ....Please be relevant, helpful & nice!

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #86

    dave_at_madison

    I am an ENXJ.  Whatever the hell that means as regards chess playing styles.  Laughing Laughing Laughing ALTHOUGH, as to my playing style - MY opening phase can go startlingly well, but then after about 15 moves, I start getting too involved in what I am doing, and conveniently forget about the threats from the other side.  And, if I am lucky enough to get thru the middle phase, the endgame phase bores me to tears.  Maybe I shouldn't play chess at all.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #87

    Soltan_Gris

    ISFP here.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #88

    DrSpudnik

    Maybe you should move someplace nicer.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #89

    WhiteAnemone

    I'm an INTJ. In one INTJ description I read, it said that INTJs 'see the world as a giant chess board' – which is not completely true for me, but still interesting.

    Apart from the obvious objections to the validity personality typology (I know some other methods apart from the MBTI as well), I think it would be very hard, and potentially impossible, to pin down an 'ideal type' for chess players.

    The stereotypes would probably indicate INTJ, INTP, INFJ, ISTJ, and ENTP; however, the world has seen extremely strong players that were most likely something entirely different, such as 8th world champion Mikhail Tal, whom I think I'd type as an ENFP.

    If chess and personality types are related at all, I would be more inclined to believe that a person's general temperament determined their playing style – attacking vs. positional and all that jazz – rather than their playing strength.

    Still, yours truly would be an obvious exception to that rule. My playing style is pretty much the polar opposite of my non-chess demeanour. On the board, I go for the flashy and spectacular, attack my opponent right away and am willing sacrifice pretty much everything. In all other areas of my life, I'm quiet, dispassionate, and avoid unnecessary risk as well as unnecessary drama.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #90

    sengacoco

    Hello all, in my opinion chess is an INTJ game. Ni is their first function meaning that they naturally look for possible future outcomes, coupled with Te as there auxillary, which is concerned with order and efficiency, makes the INTJ a chess machine. For example, many of the greats (Carlsen, Kasparov) say that chess is a matter of instantly "feeling" the right move. This is Ni. However, ISTJs often have massive working memories which is hugely important in chess. I would posit that most of the greats (Carlsen, Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov) were all INTJ but several (Petrosian comes to mind with his security-oriented style) might have been ISTJ. Also worth noting I believe Anand is INTP.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #91

    sengacoco

    Also as a side-note to anybody new to mbti, DO NOT use any surveys or type tests. These are totally inefficient and more often than not wrong. This is why many people dismiss the theory as a whole; the instument is blunt. If you want to know your type, read up on the functions ( Ni Si Ti Te Ne Se Te Fe ). They are at the core of the theory and seeing yourself in a function description is a much better way to determine type than testing or reading type descriptions.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #92

    dodgecharger1968

    As an ENTP, I'm curious why my function stack, with Ne-Ti, wouldn't work as well as Ni-Te.  Capablanca and Bent Larsen were probably ENTPs, and Kasparov has been claimed to be that type as well.  Fischer was a quintessential INTJ, but no one else comes instantly to mind.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #93

    DrSpudnik

    I'm a HDTV. I like to be clear even though I seldom get good reception without a cable hookup.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #94

    AlCzervik

    I'm a HTTP. Must have connections to connect.

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #95

    DrSpudnik

    I'm also a Virgo, so I naturally irritate the hell out of everybody as a matter of course. I'll never know why people get so bothered by unsolicited self-improvement advice. Undecided

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #96

    Jion_Wansu

    don't make me unhide the poker threads...

  • 3 months ago · Quote · #97

    DrSpudnik

    I was expecting it any day now. Then you started commenting on non-poker threads. I just thought it was some kind of therapy, so I didn't say anything about it.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #98

    andrewjeselson2

    INFP; i play human moves(combined with tactics, positional play, etc.), and win games from ideas. "romantic" chess player. my style always changes depending on my mood. unpredictable. literally only can relate to ivanchuk, although i study positional players. when i attack, its like tal, not systematic like botvinnik. 128 iq. creative, got unique ideas and novelties. Make interesting exchange sacrifices,  or make a giant pawn wall when least expected, weird sacrifices, bishop pair win, or knight lockdown, always unique ideas i use.

  • 2 months ago · Quote · #99

    rcmacmillan

    ENFP here. What Andrew just said, but outgoing as all h*ll.

  • 4 days ago · Quote · #100

    Licker79

    INTP. Wow, I've never seen so many INTPs in my life. I've hardly ever met any in person. This is great. I would say INTJ would be the best for chess. The J is important because of the structured way of thinking. I hate memorizing openings and when I am in tactical positions my mind can be sharp at times but is very unorganized. I waste too much time. I find methods like Kotov's think like a grandmaster, with the tree of moves to be difficult to utilize. My mind lacks that level of organization that all the GMs seem to have. ISTJ seems good and organized but I think their game might lack intuition and imagination. That's why I think INTJ has the whole package.


Back to Top

Post your reply: