I'd say that's a pretty accurate assessment (at least, in my experience it is). I personally do not enjoy chess, though I am a capable player. Not a master, but I can hold my own. Never bothered to get any better, because frankly I don't find the game to be much fun or even mentally challenging. The lessons of chess can be applied in real life to good effect, which is probably the only reason I at least learnt the basics and went from there.

I'd think that Te would favour a chess master.

 

I do enjoy the concept of it, but I don't have the urge to master it.
The same goes with similar games like Chinese chess or Go.

 

It's a great concept, but it's hard to be dedicated to it. It's not that I'm incapable of being a decent chess player - I know that if I put my mind to it, I could be pretty good at it. It's more that I find strategic planning and looking three or four steps a head of myself much more fruitful in projects that last longer than, say 30 minutes. I prefer to plan over periods of months, years, or decades instead.

I know that applying that planning and strategizing seems to make a good setup for an individual who would out-chess chess. However, I cannot do something if I don't see the meaning or reason behind it. It isn't something that I feel I particularly learn anything worthwhile from (at this point, I did when I first learned the rules). Playing chess out in the real world isn't a skill that I see as aiding me in my grander plans for my life.

THere have been a few times when I have applied myself to chess. Every time I do it, I'm extremely good at it. However, I feel exhausted and like I wasted my time afterward. It's too intellectually demanding to be something sort of mindless to help distract my thoughts from a problem long enough to come up with better ideas when I get back to them and it's almost like the brainpower required to win is being misallotted as I have better things to do with that energy (maybe an Enneatype 5 thing, too).

 

This is very accurate.
From that, you are pointing toward chess being more suited for people with high Se and individuals with Ti.

 

prefer using the concept of chess in real life.

i wouldn't even say that about me. the concept i use the most in real life is algebra. so many things leap straight to my mind in an equation format. in fact [poncey remark of the week coming up], life itself sort of feels like an equation to me.

chess is almost the opposite. it's endless ramifications of ... endlessness.

what i like best about games is their interactivity. i've probably played about eight games of chess in my life and iirc something about it depresses me. it reminds me of conversations where you're 'listening' to whatever the person says, except no, you're not really listening to their last move. you're listening to the entire global abstraction of it. i hate that in conversation and so i guess it makes sense that i don't enjoy chess. it's too meta for me.

i don't have a clue what functions might make somebody good at it. eta: but i do know my intp son went through a chess phase when he was about 11 and as far as i could tell he got pretty good. he had another kid in his after school care who was a provincial champion so they'd play together and i guess my kid learned a whole lot pretty fast. i can't imagine chess is much fun with someone on a different level from you, though.

 

i wouldn't even say that about me. the concept i use the most in real life is algebra. so many things leap straight to my mind in an equation format. in fact [poncey remark of the week coming up], life itself sort of feels like an equation to me.

chess is almost the opposite. it's endless ramifications of ... endlessness.

what i like best about games is their interactivity. i've probably played about eight games of chess in my life and iirc something about it depresses me. it reminds me of conversations where you're 'listening' to whatever the person says, except no, you're not really listening to their last move. you're listening to the entire global abstraction of it. i hate that in conversation and so i guess it makes sense that i don't enjoy chess. it's too meta for me.

i don't have a clue what functions might make somebody good at it.

Can you elaborate on your use of Algebra in real life.

 

Neh, can't say that I like it. Wrong generation, I grew up on Diablo and Starcraft...

 

I find this a very interesting statement, especially since I see Chess as transcending generations or cultures. It's almost an archetype in a way. I think it has been played for hundreds of years in various countries though I know tho true origin of chess is (as far as I know) lost to the ages. Perhaps you're right, though, and the world is outgrowing chess. An interesting concept.

 

At one point in time, I was rather adept at the practice, being a chess champion at school for a year at the age of 15 over 200 players. As off this current time, I would say I am mediocre (1100 rating) at it, because chess is as much of a game of strategy, as much as psychological warfare. If I were to play a game in-real-life, I would progress further to where I am now (playing chess.com), because that is where my main strength lies (to my detriment).

Chess, contrary to many people's belief, is more a game of reaction rather than strategy. It wouldn't matter to which strategy was implemented, plans change, so does motives and by definition ways to accomplish the goal (checkmate). Having a strategy which is set-in-stone is more likely to lose you the game, rather than win. In this regard, moderation is a better policy than zealotry - one must be flexible, adaptive and receptive to the opponents machinations, in order to succeed in the physical aspect of chess.

With regards to the mental aspect of of the game, as mentioned previously its a game of psychological manipulation. If I were to provide examples - eyes darting to the opposite side the board, is much more of a solid defense then an well-placed piece to reinforce a position. Another example would be the act of hesitation - lingering on one piece would make an opponent question your motives and by extension adapt accordingly. In doing so, doubt is his worst enemy at the moment, which you could compound on by delaying your plan with time. The possibilities are endless and the ways you could exploit that, in the millions.

A few deductions from this: If one were to be a natural master at the psychological aspect of it, they would by nature be great actors. If one were to be a master of the practical at it, they would be very much in-tune with their environment, which confirms what @brightflashes was saying with regards to ISTP's being good at the game.

To master chess, one must master both aspects of the above. Apologies for the ramble - I have a passion for the game (when everything falls to plan of course).

 

I like the idea of playing chess, but I don't really enjoy it. Not for lack of trying, but it just doesn't appeal to me. My INFJ friend isn't fond of it either, but my ESTP dad and ESFP cousin love playing chess.

 

I don't care for it because it's boring. Monopoly, Connect Four and Final Fantasy were my jams.

 

Not interested. It's too much effort. I can't concentrate that long and the prize isn't high enough. What's the point in gloating that you outmaneuvered someone in a board game?

In real life, I'm also not calculating enough to use the concept of chess as an analogy for 'manipulating' people. I do use lots of intuition and long-term strategy when there is a constant state of crisis somewhere (e.g. corporate psychopath turning the work place into a shit hole). But I take myself out of the equation in this kind of situation.

As for games, I like Civilization V, Diablo II ...

 

Very much a "Connect 4/Uno/Checkers/Tonk/21" type of human. However, I did play non-chess related game(s) with the glass chess pieces.

 

I am really bad and also uninterested in "rational" games, such as chess. I just can't wrap my head around them, plus they are super tiring. I am the kind of woman who cheats a lot when playing Professor Layton games. So much for being a "thinker".

I like games because of the stories they tell, so games that interest me are usually video games (and only a few of them, given that most are all about gameplay). Chess doesn't tell me anything. Plus, I don't care for beating/being better than others.

 

Interesting responses. I play chess casually but not very eager into it too.

Same with game of bridge, it is interesting and challenging but even in this game i kept having "miscommunication" with my partner when there are no verbal exchange are allowed to occure. As funny as it sounds, haha.

 

I was good at it, but it's a game like any other. In fact, when so many video games are more rich and complicated than chest, why bother with chest?

I like this version though

 

During school I used to play often during lunch-breaks, can't say I was good at it, but not terrible either.
(this was before the cellphone got widespread)

If I had a choice, Diablo or Starcraft, even Command & Conquer was to be preferred.
Turn-based strategy games wasn't ever really my thing.

 

I love chess. I have not played for along time. Most people do not know how to play it any more. My dad taught me when I was growing up, and he always beat me. I them used to play with my cousin when we were little. On another note I hate checkers, can not say why.

 

To me chess is too “demanding” of my thought processes. While I am a forward thinker it is much more so subconscious. When I play chess I have to actively think about planning ahead and reacting and counter reacting. Unlike real life or an event that requires such thinking chess usually has no actual benefit to me and thus it just becomes a hassle to play consistently and improve. I would agree chess is much more Ti based. I think and respond intuitively. To me usually the quickest response tends to be the one I go with. In chess that’s a big no go and one slip up throws off an entire game, even if one has a big lead.

Another reason I don’t like chess is actually a pretty odd one. Chess is unlike real life in that both teams are equal. Both sides have the exact same resources at their disposal. You can’t train yourself to have better pieces and you can only improve through your understanding of the strict and defined system in place. There is no sense of progression to me. I can’t see or feel myself improving other than my win rate. I enjoy having something to progress towards. A goal, the next level. I enjoy and play fighting video games competitively because I can visually see myself improving over time through extended combos and reaction times. I enjoy MMOs because over time my character can amass gear, skills etc.

Without a sense of progression or moving somewhere I lose interest in games very quickly. I have no desire to be a pro chess player so playing it all together is something I just typically don’t do unless someone else proposes the idea.

 

I enjoy and play fighting video games competitively because I can visually see myself improving over time through extended combos and reaction times.

 

I personally really enjoy Chess and play it regularly. I have a board at work and play frequently with my coworkers.

Also, I'm very rusty on MBTI theory so I really can't respond to your question about functions.

 

I like strategy games, but I don't really like chess.

 

I like playing chess, and I like to think I'm pretty capable at it until I get beaten. An ENFP friend helped me with chess a couple years back, and I've gotten better after that. Last year, I played the ISTJ team leader of this IxTJ-IxTP nerd gaming group in my school, and he beat me in about five minutes. Most people don't play chess, so it's difficult to find someone to verse. And when I find someone who does play, I try to get them to show me their strategies.

 

Not sure if liking chess is type related, but it's an interesting idea, considering the kind of thinking that is required when you play. It's really hard to say though, how much of it is strategic thinking, and how much it's reading the other person and antipating the kind of decision they're likely to make. I do think playing against a person is quite different from playing AI for that reason.I went through a big chess phase, but I don't really care for it too much, now. I do like logic and strategy games, and I like reversi. Just thought I'd add an INFJ perspective haha.

 

i used to play goofball chess with my 10-year-old. for whatever that's worth . . . .

i really liked that. the two of us were both prone to the same kinds of lapses and blind spots, both of us prone to leaving our something-or-other wide open and in check for most of a game without either side noticing. and then there were the elaborate sound effects and little roleplays we would do while moving our pieces around. used to make both of us laugh so hard we'd need help getting up off the floor.

i'd rather 'play' chess than poker though. any day, all day, ever, with anyone, no matter what. i HATE poker. too much to ever have played it often enough that i could figure out why.

 

I am still waiting for more replies to my type thread on there, but I have come to understand that I'm an NT type though my personal research. But I wanted to chime in here, if that is okay. I personally really like playing chess as it's like a battlefield to me. I have thoughts about trying to master/improve my skills, but I get confused by all the manuals and technical.

Also which functions do you think favor a master chess player:

I honestly think Ni helps as does Te. Because Ni is future gazing and Te helps make decisions.

 

Well, I liked chess since I was a kid, I play it from time to time and I really enjoy it, and for the poor time I dedicated to the game I'm modestly good though.

 

I like to assault people mentally so that's why I'm not a big fan of chess.
Around my community, everyone seems fragile lately and yet predictable, bores me to death!

 

I play a lot of strategy games, but not really for the strategic element, and chess is basically just strategy. I get the feeling that INTJs are indeed wired for strategic thinking, but it's redundant and wasteful to only focus on that in lieu of what else we could be doing. That INTJ chess grandmaster I read about somewhere probably enjoys the fame and glory or something, but I'm never gonna give the time investment to become that good, so oh well. Same goes for a lot of competitive games, where I could probably be good, but there are other things I want to do and different kinds of fun to be had.

IxTPs and ExTPs probably enjoy the game because it helps them flex their Ti thinking, and since they're all Perceivers, working on a strategic "puzzle" to completion can be good practice for other parts of life.