if i was to tell some1's personality then i would have to of seen a few of their games to see what they are doing differently or if they r changing nothing
Personally at the moment i would be moving into green from red as i am not getting pass this learning curve
I'm a red and I'm getting my butt kicked...
We're all four colors...I'm Red, Green, Blue, Brown.
Reds seem to attack more and are disorganized.
Green are more future thinking and plan out moves well in advance.
Blue are here to meet people.
Browns will always have all their players covered and take less risk.
I guess us reds drive the greens crazy.....but I'll have to go green or my rating is going be be around 500 :, )
Yep i like being green as it gives me a better understanding of the game. I have now joined a chess club and i have got a chess game.
Chess players usually possess combined characteristics, but in general there are 2 big camps: those who play aggressively and those who take things quietly, I think this comes naturally to everyone and players simply play in a way they feel better. In both camps there are very skillful players and also the opposite, some win a lot, some lose a lot, but his style apparently makes no difference to the success they may have. A good example of professional players could be Kasparov and Karpov, fire and ice, both were incredibly strong and about equal in skill, but his play was very different, the first was an amazing attacking player and the last was a so called positional player, he preferred to win by the small accumulation of advantages. Kasparov was very intimidating and expressive while Karpov was more reserved. It seems the player's style is related with his personality. Finally something worth noticing is that both kind of players, attacking and positional, when it comes to a very strong level and they're successful, share a trait, they're both ambitious and always want to win, this same "fighting spirit" transpires from his comments and annotations in their respective books, so maybe the style could vary, but they're both very competitive. I think is the same in other sports. Most people tend to see chess as a quiet and soft game, related only with analytical thinking, but it seems this little game is concerned also with fighting characteristics and very probably the same traits of a warrior are useful for a chess player, it doesn't matter if he's a Karpov or a Kasparov.
Thanks....I can see what your saying. I'm not a chess historian but I assume Karpov and Kasparov played each other....did either have an advantage?
I'm aggressive but not skilled so I tend to do well and then colapse as my position falls apart. I hope with experience to hold my own...I don't think I'll ever be a positional player but hopefully I can attack with more thought behind each move.
oh yes, they played a lot, actually one of the biggest clashes in chess history, by the strenght of the players and their opposite style. Between them the score favors Kasparov by something like 2 or 4 wins, with a lot of draw games, so they're practically equal. On the other hand, Kasparov has more total wins in his career than Karpov.
I've heard of a lot of players that start being tactical and with the years they become more and more positional.
Below is a link to resigning or not....I believe a person's personality has alot to do with the decision.....
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/is-it-rude-not-to-resign-when-youre-beaten?page=3
Greens will resign when they know they are beaten
Brown may turn bullheaded or may quit out of frustration of not being in charge
Red will resign unless they see fun in prolonging the agony
Blues will resign so as not to hurt the other person's feelings...
Any thoughts? See first post for outline of the four personality colors....
As you would anticipate, there is considerable overlap between the various personality-typing schemes. If I have learnt anything from these two proposals:
it is that there are only two types of people in this world: those who divide people into types and those who do not.
Those groupings seem a little restrictive and arbitrary - I can say that I've displayed all those characteristics at some point or another.
it is that there are only two types of people in this world: those who divide people into types and those who do not.
Is that a nod to Russell's Paradox?
"Not doing anything" is usually the worst thing you can do. Just ask your wife, if you don't believe me.
Definitely yellow. Scared to do anything at all. (Married.)
Well Harpo, you know what you need to to do. You need to beat'er.
~The Doctor
Regarding your discussion of colors and personalities of the player. In a discussion I had in my old chess group, my chess mentor, John, related a few stories of playing the man and not the position. He would purposefully do what you didn't like just to get you out of your comfort zone. A book he related his experiences to, "Chess for Tigers".
I will have to admit, as a result of his mentoring, I will now do what I have found that my opponent doesn't like. And if I were to pick a color, I would definitely be a 'green'. I will do the analysis tree on the moves, but it's always interesting when my opponent makes that "One Move" that I didn't analyze! To me, ladies and gentlemen, that is what makes chess!
gabrielconroy wrote: ...Is that a nod to Russell's Paradox?
1. attributed to Robert Benchley? (http://www.brandywinebooks.net/?post_id=126)
4. There are three types of people in the world: those who can count and those who can't.
On the subject of two camps. According to the Chess Spartans (chess-spartans), there are two types of Chess Athenians (=chess-athenians):
1. Those who flunked the entrance exam for Chess Sparta - by leaving the examination hall early.
2. Those who misread the entrance criteria - and thought they were joining Chess Armenians.
The study of humans is interesting and serious....we use the colors to teach communication and teambuilding skills. We try to get students to understand that people are complex and only by trying to understand the other persons viewpoints and communication styles can you work effectively with them. We try hard not to put people in sterotypes but it's hard not to do that....
William Winter had a chess personality that was the opposite of his day-to-day
personality.
"Notably, his over-the-board and real-life characters were in stark contrast to each other. Harry Golombek described his play as "classic, scientific and sober; away from the board, he was revolutionary, illogicaly moved by his emotions (he contrived to be both a fervent communist and a staunch patriot) and, more often than not, drunk"
Twice British Champion, so a decent player.
I think I am a red. xD
i am greenish reddish, leaning towards red.
i like playing the first move that comes to my mind. even in endgames, so i'm very red.
but kinda blueish not because i like to make lots of friends, but because after looking at a position for some while i can sense the position emotionaly, often the feelings have nothing to do with the game itself, but in an artistic way... almost as if chess was music.......
theni make a horrible blunder and resign 5 moves later :P
How many categories do there have to be before it can be taken seriously? Does the category label make a difference? Belbin did some serious research on Team Roles nearly 30 years ago. His categorization of people into groups (http://www.belbin.com/rte.asp?id=8) is widely used and accepted.
I don't think it is necessarily the number of categories so much as whether there is a recognition of the inherent failings of relying on categorisation. Jungian personality analyses result in categories of character traits, but they are rarely taken to be cut and dried, and universally and equally applicable to everyone within the same category.
Also, the majority of the world's wealth of literature, art, philosophy, psychology, psychoanalysis etc., concerns people, their actions and personalities, and the subtelties thereof, so a four-grade colourisation of those subtelties is bound to come up short.
I study people's personalities and teach a program called Winning Colors to my students in high school. The four basic personality types are:
Red: Doer, risk taker, fun
Green: Thinker, analyzer, invester
Brown: Leader, my way or the high way, organized
Blue: Relator, groups, emotional
I've always thought of Chess as a Green activity but while playing others I see that many of the other personality traits come out also.
What are you thoughts...can you tell the type of personality when you play someone on line?
Chuck