The subject of *player typology*, some recent thoughts...

It is the player himself who can best determine which type he belongs
to. Only the player himself can know how his own thought processes
goes. I only have recourse to my own thought processes, and I clearly
recognize my own weak sides. I belong to those who simply must find
the right plan hidden in the position. Otherwise I can't play, so I am
definitely a positional player, according to my model. Those who can
"conjure up" plans (regardless of their validity) belong to the
strategists and the tacticians. However, I often miss the concrete
things in the position, which is due to a lack of concretism. The
technical capacity almost disappears sometimes. But if I *repress* my
strongest function (the planning function) when playing blitz, then I
become reasonably strong technically.

The "philosopher" must be shut out if one is to be strong technically.
Chess is problematic in this sense. There is an ongoing conflict
between these different faculties. Comparatively, in archery, only the
*technical* (concretistic) capacity should be in operation at
contests. However, in chess this is not possible. You cannot play with
the backbone only, but conflicting functions must be active
simultaneously. That's why a player such as Kramnik, at 2753, can
blunder away a piece in the opening. There are amateur players, much
weaker than Kramnik, that would *never* lose a piece this way, because
they are very down-to-earth and technical, always focused on that
which lies near at hand, i.e. that which immediately suggests itself,
the obvious and natural. On the other hand, this player cannot find
the right plan.

Anand,V (2785) - Kramnik,V (2753) [C42] Mtel Masters Sofia BUL (7),
19.05.2005

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.Nxe5 d6 4.Nf3 Nxe4 5.d4 d5 6.Bd3 Nc6 7.0-0 Be7
8.c4 Nb4 9.Be2 0-0 10.Nc3 Bf5 11.a3 Nxc3 12.bxc3 Nc6 13.Re1 Re8
14.cxd5 Qxd5 15.Bf4 Rac8 16.Qc1N Na5 17.c4 Qe4?? 18.Bd1! Qd3 19.Re3
Qxc4 20.Re5 1-0

Before his 16th move ...Na5? Kramnik thought for 40 minutes. On his
17th move ...Qe4?? Kramnik thought for three minutes. Obviously, for
43 minutes, his thoughts weren't occupied with the concrete things in
the position. Where were he?

Comparatively, in the Japanese tea ceremony, and in Zen archery, the
mind shouldn't be flying off somewhere else, but it should be present,
fully in tune with the present situation. The mind should be at one
with body and instinct. In this condition, the archer hits the mark
precisely. A chessplayer, too, has recourse to an auto-pilot. So, if
Kramnik had played this position in a blitz game, deliberating it for
15 seconds, then he wouldn't have made those amateurish mistakes.

However, chess demands that you use your philosophizing mind
concurrently with the auto-pilot. This creates a conflict. The latter
demands a feeling for the situation, a presence in the here and now,
otherwise you are bound to put a piece en prise. If a player is
lacking in this respect, it is remarkable how handicapped he is by it.
Suddenly he blunders away a fine game.

I think these difficulties are kind of obvious. Thinking of how much
energy and effort that goes into chess, it is strange how little
people reflect on such things. At least chess trainers should be more
aware of these problems. The best method of training is to get a grasp
of your inferior function. I, for my part, am the philosopher kind. I
could do with a little Zen archery, or tea ceremonials. I wonder
whether I should purchase a very fine chess set, slowly and with
presence replaying fine games of Petrosian, et al?

Please read my theory of player typology he
http://hem.passagen.se/melki9/playstyle1.htm

Mats

Hartston once noted in one of his books that the individual player was
often the worst judge of his own style.

However, identifying your own style is very important if you want to
develop as a player.

It would be interesting to see if there is a way you can determine
what each player's type is like so they can match their study habits,
etc. accordingly.