In my psychology course, I heard some chess-related theory from a colleague and I'd like to know if anyone has some kind of source. It's regarding which piece you like better, according to how you discuss matters. This colleague was able to predict with certain precision how someone he had just met would play a chess game. It's roughly like this:
- Pawns are arguments, small points that you keep pushing.
- Bishop is the belief, dogmatic and escapes diagonally.
- Knight is the desire, bestial and hardest to predict.
- Rook is the denial, cuts the field and hits directly.
- Queen is the opinion, strong and imposing, but easily threatened.
[Edit: an argument may become an opinion if it's pushed and sustained far enough.]
As for me, I'd say the rook represents me better.
- Pawns are arguments, small points that you keep pushing.
- Bishop is the belief, dogmatic and escapes diagonally.
- Knight is the desire, bestial and hardest to predict.
- Rook is the denial, cuts the field and hits directly.
- Queen is the opinion, strong and imposing, but easily threatened.
[Edit: an argument may become an opinion if it's pushed and sustained far enough.]
As for me, I'd say the rook represents me better.