Myers-Briggs Types and Chess

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #101


    INFP here. Im multi-talented. I make poems, run cross country, study math and engineering, write, love music, played piano, know spanish, some japanese, etc. Im just a nerd, but i do social things too (but its stressful bc i hate crowds and get overwhelmed and annoyed). I study chess alot. My weaknesses are dismissing people and refusing to try when i see them play a retarded opening like the philidor defense or the italian game or pirc. those openings play themselves and i win alot but my losses are from not trying and laziness, cave-man attacks and scalps bc those openings have minimal strategy. I try to transpose to something complex when i can like the Kings Indian from the Philidor/Pirc/Steinitz Defense. I do exceptionally well when the position is complicated. If i dont like something, i will force my will and look for ways to punish it to the max and tell my opponent to never play a move like that again. Im a positional based player, 100% strategy in the beginning, but have became 100% tactical, i play strategy with tactics with position. Im just integrated. My openings now are similar to Shirov-type openings, like Kings Indian, Slav, Shabalov attack, Martinez Variaiton Ruy Lopez with 7. g4 , Marshall Attack, Open Chigorin, Sicilian Dragon, Bird Opening, Regular ruy lopez martinex variant playing f4, regular ruy lopez, worrall system ruy lopez, Be2 positional sicilian where i simply grind them and play like karpov (take b6 square, and d5 square, o-o), or play like Tal with early g4 (delayed o-o-o) or delay g4 with early castling (o-o-o). I have also went through a phase of playing the english opening, the catalan, queens gambit, reti, the london system, the colle zukertort system, the colle system, stonewall attack. The opening i started out with was the Caro Kann, and as white i played e4, be2, nf3 be3, simple development. Started out with moving fortress chess style. giant pawn wall with pieces behind. I have a long way to go and my goal is to memorize (and understand) all variations (as a practical guideline) and know all ideas to all positions and create ideas. If im lazy and annoyed i play like Tal, if im nervous i play like Petrosian (passive, or cautious, or prophelactic, it changes), if im confident i play like kasparov. My personality is extremely similar to vassily ivanchuk, im ambitious, but extremely awkward and sensitive in real life (all infp steriotypes 100% accurate, i am nice, etc.). I believe INFPs would make gr8 players and I dont think we should be restricted to a steriotype. My style is romantic at times, like lasker at times, karpov, capablanca, etc. I study alot of games, currently studying kramnik right now. Also im unrated rn, plan on getting rated toward end of year. 1600 here, 1985 on chess24. I know alot, but my games on here are 100% intuition, minimal calculation. I tend to focus only when there is silence, minimal humidity, cool air, opponent is quiet, i ate before i play, i meditates before (nerves are my biggest weakness bc it blocks my calculation when i can calculate deep 20 moves at times with slowing down, with nerves it goes to 6 instantly). So i carry the percieving problem of distractions. Imposing my will and playing my chess, making the board look my way, the right way, where all pieces active, i make my minor pieces stronger (i have a personal relationship with my army and they with me in sacrifice if necessary), and using my intuition for things and understanding, positional moves, but im not afraid of using my memory and known variaitons to influence my move. I switch from playing the objective best move and psychological move depending on my mood. I can be a tricky player, logical player (with strategy, closed position, pawn breaks), positional player(improving my position/ grinding, weak squares), and i can be a very tactical player (how i win games usually). I dont like draws. If i had a  choice between draw and take a risk, there is 65% chance i would take a risk. I still have alot to understand in chess.

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #102


    We'll put you in the long-winded category.

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #103


    nemo ?

  • 7 months ago · Quote · #104


    or maybe a relative.

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #105


    Hello folks. I'm an INTJ. I'm also a personality-theory hobbyist. The first post I noticed here outlined four dichotomies (NF, NT, SF, and SP) which doesn't really do well to differentiate types of people in chess or in any other matter. But anyways, figured I'd chime in on a topic that you all may find interesting.


    Some people focus on a logical "way of thinking" called "Ti." This is a focus on logical systems, rules, and laws. xNTPs, xSFJs, xSTPs, and xNFJs all share this focus, and thus will often perform better playing positional as opposed to tactical games; they will identify systems of attack (openings) and general principles (passed pawns, outposts, etc.) as strategic rules to achieve, and pursue them accordingly.


    The other half of the people will focus more on "Te." From this vantage point, rules and laws are less important while points of efficiency and leverage are focused. These individuals will often perform better tactically, and play more varied games. They will likely try gambits and sacrificial plays. xNTJs, xNFPs, xSFPs, and xSTJs are all Te-types.


    Neither Ti nor Te has anything to do with training, memory, IQ, or other arbitrary factors which people like to try and associate with personality--so anyone can be successful playing any way. But there will be tendencies and patterns if you know what to look for!

  • 5 months ago · Quote · #106


    I'm an EIEIO. I have an oink oink here and an oink oink there.

  • 4 months ago · Quote · #107


    I'm an ENFP any other NF chess players out there? I realize this is an NT past time.

  • 7 weeks ago · Quote · #108


    ENTP and INTJ would be best at chess in my opinion because both have inuitive functions at the top of their functional stacks, hence seeing the bigger picture better than other types, whilst also having a thinking function second on their functional stacks, giving them a rational mindest to each problem. ENTJ and INTP as well as ENFP and INFJ would also be quite good, but not as much as the first two, I would imagine. I am an INTP and MBTI types are more than a mixture of just 4 dichotomies. You must look at the functions to truly understand MBTI.  

  • 7 weeks ago · Quote · #109


    Well said krazy21.  As an INTJ, and having been a programmer/analyst now cataloging librarian, you describe the levels of functions well.

Back to Top

Post your reply: