Before I dive in: these are five kinds of chess players, but definitely not the five kinds of chess players. The taxonomy is much more extensive. And these categories are non-exclusive.

1. The Memorizer / Cyborg

“Memorizer” is a derogatory term. This person can bang out 30 moves of theory in every opening. Their 31st move will almost certainly be a stinker. They can’t really play chess, they just memorize.

A friend of mine (rated mid/high 2200) loves playing against these players. He’ll select a line in which the book goes all the way to, say, a “drawn” K+R vs. K+R endgame. He’ll then win that endgame.

I saw one particularly bitter memorizer sneer at him after a game: “Why did you keep playing after move 40? The endgame is drawn.” My friend gave one of the best retorts I’ve heard in a while: “The endgame isn’t drawn, it’s even.”

(Subtext: “You suck at endgames.”)

When a memorizer actually knows how to play chess a little (and their memorization goes very deep), they graduate to become a cyborg. They do what the computer says so often, they start to look like a computer themselves.

To be sure, “cyborg” is sometimes also used to describe someone who’s cheating via a computer. That’s not necessarily what I’m talking about here.

2. The rating whore.

This is pretty self-explanatory. This person doesn’t wake up thinking about how to get better at chess. They wake up thinking about how to get a higher rating. Maybe that means becoming better at chess, but that’s kind of a secondary consideration.

These players will never want to play lower rated players — because if they lose the game, they’ll lose a lot of points. They don’t want to play if their rating is too high, because… they’ll lose a lot of points. If their rating crosses a threshold that’s important to them mid-tournament, they’ll actually withdraw from the tournament to “lock in” that rating.

If they are beating a higher-rated player and the higher-rated player offers a draw, they’ll often accept. Better to get those rating points in hand.

Even outside tournament chess, you can sometimes spot these guys. You’re playing a casual game. Maybe you’re playing against them, maybe you’re playing against someone else and they’re watching. But if you reveal that you might at least know possibly something about chess, their first question will be: “what’s your rating?”

As in, “uh oh, I don’t know what to do with you. Am I supposed to arrogantly dismiss you? Or genuflect and kiss your ring? I can’t take this uncertainty!”

3. The guy who tries too hard to be original

This is a minority type, but this type is near and dear to my heart. This guy in your town is absolutely unique. But there’s one of these guys in every town.

This guy plays weird openings. Expect 1. g4, 2. a4, etc. He doesn’t follow the conventional wisdom. In many cases, the reason is so that you’re “out of book” and he has the advantage. He never realizes that the conventional wisdom is conventional for a reason: straying too far from the path just means you suck.

(By way of analogy, yes: a football defender will be confused if you’re a wide receiver who skips backwards instead of runs forwards. That doesn’t mean you’ll be harder to defend though.)

4. The guy who can’t let it go. (Related: the guy who was always winning, until he lost.)

You play a 40 move game. He loses. No matter what the circumstances are, he’ll want to go back a few moves and analyze it. “All I had to do was play Nf5 instead of a3, and I’m winning.” No. No you’re not. You made a mistake on move 12 that lead to your position slowly collapsing. Going back to move 37 isn’t going to reveal your error.

Hilariously, if you indulge this person as much as they’d like, you eventually will get back to revisiting what he played on move 12. If he discovers a better move on move 12, he’ll confidently proclaim like he knew all along: “See? I was winning!”

Relatedly, this guy is annoying even when they’re watching. Two strong players play a tense and interesting game. One finally succumbs. This guy will pipe up, “Why didn’t you take the knight a few moves ago?” A fatal mistake is to indulge with an answer, otherwise you’ll be lead down an infinitely-expanding labyrinth of inane suggestions.

My greatest contribution to chess has nothing to do with a clever opening variation or a strategic philosophy. My contribution is a response to this kind of guy. “Why didn’t you take the knight?” “I didn’t see it.” This is a great response, because it (a) ends the conversation, and (b) makes this guy feel good that he saw a move that you — the great player you are — didn’t. He won’t disturb that feeling by asking a follow-up.

5. Scaredy cat / White to trade and win

I don’t know why this person plays chess. Given his choice, he wouldn’t move a piece past the fourth rank. Ever. The order of the day is duck and cover.

A related person, though not always the same person, is the “white to trade and win” guy. Give this guy a pawn, and suddenly the only plan he can execute is to trade all the pieces. If you have any sense of dynamic play, these guys are fun to play. They’ll tie themselves in knots trying to trade pieces or hang on to their pawn, “sac sac mate” is always looming.

6. See also…

There are lots of others, but these are the first five that popped into my head. And I should stop writing at some point.