Are you more strictly logical or intuitive in your thought processes?

You start developping a 6th sense after some practice, but it's more pattern matching with your experience database than voodoo magic or "intuition".

My intuition told me this might be an interesting thread. Logic told me to not expect much.

When analyzing any position:

Intuitive first, examining first the pawn structure (specifically levers and pawn breaks indicated), material situation, threat(s), etc.

Increasingly more logical until arriving at the move selected.

Logic/calculation helps progress, but it can be fun to play off intuition. In blitz I dont normally calculate.

        Should that be "liars"?

Please contribute to the OPs topic.  NOT your ad-hominem opinion about  actual contributors to his thread. 

Also I am sure that just about everybody on this site has a spell-check pogram, so pleeease!!

Intuition is the unconscious generalization of your previous experience. If you spot a strong move immediately without even thinking (and maybe even have difficulties to explain why the move is strong), then your intuition is working. I am sure that all chess players use their intuition a lot, even if they think they are acting purely logical.

You are describing what happens to a strong with the 5  visualization pattern memory banks.  The move seems to jump up off the board and smack you on the forehead in a flash!!

The very next precaution is once you have found a good move look for a better one.

Intuition says "Do it!" but you aint seen it before!

Maybe Capa whispering in your ear, maybe not.

More like intuitoothless!

Now we're sucking diesel!

Well, while both must necessarily be involved in the game, it seems certain players generally talk as if they prefer one over the other. In particular, the current world champion seems more intuitive than, say, Botvinnik.

Depends. If there's a logical combination that is the obviously the best option, I do that. If the situation is too complex for me to apply strict logic, I rely on intuition - do what seems right. But I think intuition is built on logic anyway. 

What you guys call intuition is what Mikhail Tal would call "not having much clue".

Yes!

Well, every brilliant move obviously has logic to it -- if you understand the position on a deep level you may eventually find it, even if your pattern recognition would have initially told you it could never work. I suppose a brilliant move could seem illogical, but that would only be because you don't understand its logic.

I sort of get what you mean -- maybe sometimes there is some important premise you don't have -- but in principle, everything can be derived from the goal of the game. You derive that sacrificing a piece is good when mate is achieved, or that being up material can be good because of how you can make queens to checkmate the opponent (we know checkmate is good; material often leads to checkmate; thus material is often good). Or maybe there is a piece that is pinned to the king: you use that to derive that this piece doesn't "really" control the squares it seems to. Chess is all about making logical deductions/connections based on what you know.

It's still generally true that being up a large amount of material for example tends to lead to checkmate. In a very large percentage of the huge database of positions with overwhelming advantages in material, mate would result. That is indeed an objective fact, I would argue, even if a computer with unlimited vision would not need to know such a fact to solve chess.

I wouldn't disagree that even if in principle everything can be derived, it's not necessarily the most efficient for humans to use such a formal logic process all the time -- that's what intuition is for. However, I think formal reasoning can be good when you are stuck -- when you check for what you're assuming about the position, you may find that you were assuming something too quickly, and this may help you consider a "weird looking" move you otherwise wouldn't have, perhaps a "brilliant" one.

Looks like they've selectively brushed only the teeth they liked ! 

"I'd like to see these people prove that any cause cannot have more than one possible effect!"

Possible effect? Seems difficult to disprove that since "possible effects," by their very nature, aren't supposed to be seen, well, except for the effect that actually happens. Then again why be so eager to simply assume "extra possible effects" exist?