@iakov98
M
I can't visualize the board in my head when I don't look at it. I'm bad at any kind of visualization. Like if someone tells me to imagine a green apple, I will imagine it for a split second but then it goes away - I can't hold on to the image or start looking at the details of the image. Maybe that's why my calculation in chess is rather shallow.
Typical thought process is "If I trade pieces on x square, then at the end of the trades the piece on x square is undefended and can be pinned to the king. " I don't see this, but I understand that this is true because of the facts of the position, as you describe. Usually I can do about 3-4 move calculations.
I would love to learn how to actually see the board in your head, but its probably too late for me (i'm 38) and not the best use of my time.
M
I can't visualize the board in my head when I don't look at it. I'm bad at any kind of visualization. Like if someone tells me to imagine a green apple, I will imagine it for a split second but then it goes away - I can't hold on to the image or start looking at the details of the image. Maybe that's why my calculation in chess is rather shallow.
Typical thought process is "If I trade pieces on x square, then at the end of the trades the piece on x square is undefended and can be pinned to the king. " I don't see this, but I understand that this is true because of the facts of the position, as you describe. Usually I can do about 3-4 move calculations.
I would love to learn how to actually see the board in your head, but its probably too late for me (i'm 38) and not the best use of my time.
I do visualization. I see a board in my mind the way they look when I'm playing online. They just exist there. The hardest for me is the endgame part when there are so many spaces in the board.
@peeceebana1 said in #23:
> I do visualization. I see a board in my mind the way they look when I'm playing online. They just exist there. The hardest for me is the endgame part when there are so many spaces in the board.
I also see the board from that angle.
> I do visualization. I see a board in my mind the way they look when I'm playing online. They just exist there. The hardest for me is the endgame part when there are so many spaces in the board.
I also see the board from that angle.
I think I use a combination of approach V and approach M, especially when playing blindfold chess. Based on the moves that occur, I sometimes know exactly where every piece is because I know the opening well, or I play a certain attacking pattern (such as the Greek Gift) and so I know that my bishop is on c2 or d3, my queen is on d1, my knight is on f3, the enemy hasn't played ...g6 and there is no knight on f6. When I calculate a position while not blindfolded, I try to hold a picture in my mind of the possible position similar to the online chessboard, even when playing in person (having started playing chess online, I find that easier)
@iakov98 said in #1:
> ...1. actual visualisation: conjuring up a mental image of the position without needing to look at the board, and being able to simply move pieces on that mentally visualised board as if you'd move a piece on an actual board, let's call it approach 'V' for short
I think it's the best way to do this, but I am unable to.
> 2. a memory-based approach where facts about the position (such as 'my king is on g1' or 'in front of my king, there is a pawn' etc.) are stored in memory and processed/remembered/changed as the calculation / blindfold game goes on (approach 'M').
This helps to tell from memory where the pieces are but it is not useful in a game. It simply doesn't make a mental picture of the position. It's more like remembering a poem. To use this method in a game you first need to have a full chessboard picture in your brain (so it's V in fact) and see that as a whole position.
> Some questions that could be considered: do you employ approach V or M? Is it some mixture of both? Or something else entirely?
I try to use both but the chessboard size is too big for me to remember everything.
> Thanks for your time and have a nice day. Cheers.
Have a nice chess.
> ...1. actual visualisation: conjuring up a mental image of the position without needing to look at the board, and being able to simply move pieces on that mentally visualised board as if you'd move a piece on an actual board, let's call it approach 'V' for short
I think it's the best way to do this, but I am unable to.
> 2. a memory-based approach where facts about the position (such as 'my king is on g1' or 'in front of my king, there is a pawn' etc.) are stored in memory and processed/remembered/changed as the calculation / blindfold game goes on (approach 'M').
This helps to tell from memory where the pieces are but it is not useful in a game. It simply doesn't make a mental picture of the position. It's more like remembering a poem. To use this method in a game you first need to have a full chessboard picture in your brain (so it's V in fact) and see that as a whole position.
> Some questions that could be considered: do you employ approach V or M? Is it some mixture of both? Or something else entirely?
I try to use both but the chessboard size is too big for me to remember everything.
> Thanks for your time and have a nice day. Cheers.
Have a nice chess.
Toll, mal wieder darüber nachzudenken.
Ich visualisiere aber anders als beschrieben und mit unterschiedlichen Methoden die sich auch kombinieren.
Beispiel: "Im Kopf" ist das Brett bei mir in 4, meist 5 Quadrate zerteilt (meine Seite, seine Seite, Damenflügel, Königsflügel). Der Bereich in der Mitte ist das 5. Quadrat, für sich stehend und , je nach Stellung, wolkig überlagernd mit den anderen 4 Quadraten.
Ich verfolge meist eine klare Strategie und dazu beobachte ich die Strategie des Gegners (also das was ich glaube, was er dann als nächstes Ziehen würde, Zugtiefe unterschiedlich) Daher "sehe" ich diese Quadrate in meinem Kopf wie ein unscharfes Bild, verfolge aber nur die Quadrate und Figuren darin, die für beide Strategien in Frage kommen.
Intuitiv kommt daraus ein Bild, welche Figur am sinnvollsten wären bzw. ist. (Die wirkt im Kopf dann viel schärfer, leuchtender) Mit dieser Figur "ziehe" ich dann tatsächlich visuell im Kopf. Die neuen Positionen und Folgezüge werden dann in den 4-5 "Quadrat-Wolken" intutiv priorisiert und die mit der meisten "Leuchtkraft" wird dann meist nochmal durchvisualisiert und mit dem vermeintlichen Favoriten des Gegner im Kopf abgeglichen.
Ich visualisiere aber anders als beschrieben und mit unterschiedlichen Methoden die sich auch kombinieren.
Beispiel: "Im Kopf" ist das Brett bei mir in 4, meist 5 Quadrate zerteilt (meine Seite, seine Seite, Damenflügel, Königsflügel). Der Bereich in der Mitte ist das 5. Quadrat, für sich stehend und , je nach Stellung, wolkig überlagernd mit den anderen 4 Quadraten.
Ich verfolge meist eine klare Strategie und dazu beobachte ich die Strategie des Gegners (also das was ich glaube, was er dann als nächstes Ziehen würde, Zugtiefe unterschiedlich) Daher "sehe" ich diese Quadrate in meinem Kopf wie ein unscharfes Bild, verfolge aber nur die Quadrate und Figuren darin, die für beide Strategien in Frage kommen.
Intuitiv kommt daraus ein Bild, welche Figur am sinnvollsten wären bzw. ist. (Die wirkt im Kopf dann viel schärfer, leuchtender) Mit dieser Figur "ziehe" ich dann tatsächlich visuell im Kopf. Die neuen Positionen und Folgezüge werden dann in den 4-5 "Quadrat-Wolken" intutiv priorisiert und die mit der meisten "Leuchtkraft" wird dann meist nochmal durchvisualisiert und mit dem vermeintlichen Favoriten des Gegner im Kopf abgeglichen.
The M approach is something I feel I'd do more during analysis of a game during a study and not a method I'd actively use while playing a game. The M approach you described would seem more like a passive and reactionary thing that would occur based on a person's knowledge of a position.
I'd like to suggest a third method maybe we can call 'S' for spatial. For example, when I imagine a pawn moving from the 2nd rank to the 4th I imagine the movement spatially. The best way to describe it is as if you were to draw on water, if I were to think about the move Ng1-f3 I would 'feel' the motion of the knight in an arching motion like an upside down 'L' but more curved if that makes sense - I suppose like a kind of muscle memory maybe gained from OTB piece movement or online mouse movement.
My visual imagination isn't great so I use it more as an aid and the V approach for me is again more of a passive and reactionary thing that occurs during a game.
Also rather than viewing/feeling pieces as they appear, I imagine/feel 'beams' projecting out from the pieces - a little like lichess's 'Piece destinations' feature - which represent where the pieces can move on the board. Having said that, I don't just stop at where the pieces could move in the current position but where they might be able to move in future positions - which is where tactical vision comes in.
So you could say it's like a visiospatial or VS kind of memory that I use predominantly. There's also a kind of 'weighting' of where the pieces can move, what I mean is let's take that knight that went from g1 to f3, depending on the position my brain will 'highlight' the moves that I think might lead to a better position.
A sequential visualisation in some kind of pseudo-thought might be: pawn hanging on e5, Nf3-e5, opponent's rook on f8, Rf8-e8, Knight attacked and rook pins it to my king, d2-d4 supports knight, d7-d6 attacks knight in pin etc. but it can vary and I might start thinking retrospecively like beginning with 'their king is exposed, look for an attack', setting that as target and allowing my brain to figure out a path towards it - maybe you could call this M, and fixating on these targets can sometimes cause thought process to become rigid and stubborn I find.
So, other than Visiospatial I would say I also have an inner monologue (audio) guiding the thought process and asking 'What about this?' or 'try this...' and then the visiospatial thoughts are more of a tool that allows me to feel, imagine and simulate a position.
If you haven't read De Groot's Perception and memory in chess, he describes this idea of strong players 'projecting piece moves' visually and spatially which allows them to identify tactical motifs such as pins forks etc. I'm not very strong myself but I can see with more experience and training that this visiospatial method paired with efficient thought sequences that pose necessary or creative questions would be the way that most of the top GMs 'think'.
Particularly listening to either Peter Svidler or Vishy Anand's thought process, you can see they just have a sense which isn't entirely visual but more inuitive because when they see a position - even if they've never seen it before - they will take that position and superimpose a kind of internal 'map' over it, maybe like how Nakamura draw arrows but much more nuanced and habitual. I wouldn't be surprised if they have very good 'parallel processing' and can kind of simulate multiple lines at once, maybe like sending multiple balls through a pin ball machine and seeing where things' bounce and land'.
TL;DR Predominantly spatial memory paired with visual memory and an inner audio/language monologue to guide the attention.
I'd like to suggest a third method maybe we can call 'S' for spatial. For example, when I imagine a pawn moving from the 2nd rank to the 4th I imagine the movement spatially. The best way to describe it is as if you were to draw on water, if I were to think about the move Ng1-f3 I would 'feel' the motion of the knight in an arching motion like an upside down 'L' but more curved if that makes sense - I suppose like a kind of muscle memory maybe gained from OTB piece movement or online mouse movement.
My visual imagination isn't great so I use it more as an aid and the V approach for me is again more of a passive and reactionary thing that occurs during a game.
Also rather than viewing/feeling pieces as they appear, I imagine/feel 'beams' projecting out from the pieces - a little like lichess's 'Piece destinations' feature - which represent where the pieces can move on the board. Having said that, I don't just stop at where the pieces could move in the current position but where they might be able to move in future positions - which is where tactical vision comes in.
So you could say it's like a visiospatial or VS kind of memory that I use predominantly. There's also a kind of 'weighting' of where the pieces can move, what I mean is let's take that knight that went from g1 to f3, depending on the position my brain will 'highlight' the moves that I think might lead to a better position.
A sequential visualisation in some kind of pseudo-thought might be: pawn hanging on e5, Nf3-e5, opponent's rook on f8, Rf8-e8, Knight attacked and rook pins it to my king, d2-d4 supports knight, d7-d6 attacks knight in pin etc. but it can vary and I might start thinking retrospecively like beginning with 'their king is exposed, look for an attack', setting that as target and allowing my brain to figure out a path towards it - maybe you could call this M, and fixating on these targets can sometimes cause thought process to become rigid and stubborn I find.
So, other than Visiospatial I would say I also have an inner monologue (audio) guiding the thought process and asking 'What about this?' or 'try this...' and then the visiospatial thoughts are more of a tool that allows me to feel, imagine and simulate a position.
If you haven't read De Groot's Perception and memory in chess, he describes this idea of strong players 'projecting piece moves' visually and spatially which allows them to identify tactical motifs such as pins forks etc. I'm not very strong myself but I can see with more experience and training that this visiospatial method paired with efficient thought sequences that pose necessary or creative questions would be the way that most of the top GMs 'think'.
Particularly listening to either Peter Svidler or Vishy Anand's thought process, you can see they just have a sense which isn't entirely visual but more inuitive because when they see a position - even if they've never seen it before - they will take that position and superimpose a kind of internal 'map' over it, maybe like how Nakamura draw arrows but much more nuanced and habitual. I wouldn't be surprised if they have very good 'parallel processing' and can kind of simulate multiple lines at once, maybe like sending multiple balls through a pin ball machine and seeing where things' bounce and land'.
TL;DR Predominantly spatial memory paired with visual memory and an inner audio/language monologue to guide the attention.
I was interested to see you articulate an alternative to the V approach, and felt a tug of recognition from something I read many years ago. I was surprised back then, when reading about blindfold chess, to learn that one of its better practitioners (I'm embarrassed to say I can't remember if it was Koltanowski, Alekhine, or some other) claimed NOT to visualize the actual positions on the board, despite the ability to play literally dozens of games blindfolded, simultaneously.
At the time, I wondered if this was merely a chess player "hiding the ball" or having innocent fun trying to dazzle others with mystical sounding malarkey -- since it's hard to even imagine an approach different from visualization when playing blindfold at length (as opposed to playing blindfold for a finite string of moves, and probably a rather short string at that, simply by memorizing an opening tree "on the fly" as it's produced in the game).
But I've come to believe the chess player was not hiding the ball, but was being honest and trying to articulate something that is hard to put into words. Indeed, I've come to believe that some people (I would guess a very, very small fraction of the population) seem able to remember in ways that most of us simply cannot imagine or even believe. And that this is so seems increasingly self-evident to me now, as I contemplate the relatively certain historical fact that a small number of humans HAVE played more than 30 blindfold games simultaneously -- and I believe that takes some mental super-power nearly nobody is born with. Can the power be cultivated with practice or insight? I highly doubt it.
I am more willing to believe that simple visualization can be cultivated with practice and insight -- but to what extent? For years I tried, and seemed to make no progress. And I mean none at all.
I could already visualize the board (through a sequence of moves) to a a certain, rather limited, extent, but only with great difficulty. When much younger, I twice managed to beat the "Chessmaster" chess program (remember that genuine gem?) on its lowest setting (where it moves nearly at random), at blindfold chess. But each game took hours -- and neither game lasted more than 20-some moves (because the computer, at that low setting, was playing so poorly).
Both times, the process took hours because I had to essentially memorize and repeat, again and again, the list of moves as that list gradually lengthened. And I tried to hang on, as best I could, to a mental picture -- seeing only PARTS of the board at any one time, and -- by repeating the memorized move string tediously, I explored parts of the board visually, and with great difficulty, answering questions to myself as i did so -- like can the computer's dark-squared bishop take my piece if I move it to g5? I would slowly move my "mind's eye" along a particular diagonal, struggling mightily to do so. It was exhausting.
On the other hand, I have known -- as I assume most of us have -- people who could visualize EASILY, or so it seems. And, what's odd, sometimes (by no means always) those people are not crushingly good, or even better, at chess. I assume it's because chess is still NOT all calculation, and that despite what seems to be a modern trend to diminish the idea, general principles, learned from reading and from practice followed by reflection, are still more than slightly important.
I'm starting to stray off topic, and I apologize. But I would like to point out two more somewhat related things, which many readers may wish to skip.
1) After more years of trying, I now believe that visualization skill CAN be enhanced with effort and practice, although perhaps not a great deal. I say this because I practice, often at night, in bed, simply "walking the chessboard" in my mind's eye -- attending to the color of the squares, while finding interesting geometrical patterns and such (like the fact that a chessboard is really composed of several smaller 4 x 4 boards grouped together -- with each of those smaller boards being identical, when viewed from either direction -- from white's side or from black's).
And with such practice, and a lot of work on tactics, I HAVE sensed a -- slight -- increase in my ability to visualize. I can now quickly call out the colors of randomly-named squares by "seeing" them mentally, and not merely memorizing them using a memory-system (I tried that too!). It's a bit like getting to know the streets in a town, and the location of shops, except the streets are ranks and files and the shops are squares. Familiarity can slowly be gained.
So perhaps working harder, or simply starting younger during rampant neuro-plasticity, DOES help us learn to visualize more easily and correctly. But a fair amount of effort has not helped me a LOT, unfortunately. It has only helped a little. But that's progress when compared to suspecting, for years, that progress itself was impossible.
2) Visualization seems (to me, at least) to be a separate mental skill that is only loosely, and not dependably, connected with other mental skills. Not all bright people, or even very bright people, can visualize well. I know this from experience, and it's not (I hope) a self-serving delusion. I hesitate to say this, since among chess players discussions of mental capacity seem often to inspire, uh, animosity and competitive barbs -- but on various other tests of mental acuity -- IQ tests and standardized tests (of various flavors) -- I have done quite well. I won't say how well, because I'm not trying to fluff my own feathers but am merely trying to make a point. Yet, despite very good "standardized" scores, I am merely a so-so chess player and my visualization powers are just above pitiful, despite literally decades of chess play.
Yet two of my relatives (I shall not identify which) -- while not out-scoring me on such standardized measures -- simply BAFFLE me with their ability to visualize. For example, either can find misplaced objects in their home, unseen for weeks, by simply reviewing the state of each room in their home, in detail, until they locate the object sought. I've witnessed this time and again, and many other demonstrations of their ability to simply "see" in their minds eye what they have seen before. At university, one of them used to note the page -- and location on the page -- of particular helpful sentences (which they could then quote verbatim) from university texts. I have witnessed this many times, with my own (physical) eyes.
So it seems to me that visualization is MOSTLY a gift -- and a very disparately distributed one, at that -- that can be improved with practice, but not necessarily to a large or sufficient extent.
But I'd love to be wrong about that. I'd love to hear truthful first-hand accounts of people who were not already so gifted ACTUALLY being able to improve a great deal (as opposed to my own little bit) their ability to visualize. Because the ability to visualize seems to me, anecdotally again, to explain, to a substantial extent, why some who do not otherwise dominate mentally grow to dominate at chess.
You know who you are. And I envy you, but don't begrudge you your gift. Enjoy it. I wish I could.
At the time, I wondered if this was merely a chess player "hiding the ball" or having innocent fun trying to dazzle others with mystical sounding malarkey -- since it's hard to even imagine an approach different from visualization when playing blindfold at length (as opposed to playing blindfold for a finite string of moves, and probably a rather short string at that, simply by memorizing an opening tree "on the fly" as it's produced in the game).
But I've come to believe the chess player was not hiding the ball, but was being honest and trying to articulate something that is hard to put into words. Indeed, I've come to believe that some people (I would guess a very, very small fraction of the population) seem able to remember in ways that most of us simply cannot imagine or even believe. And that this is so seems increasingly self-evident to me now, as I contemplate the relatively certain historical fact that a small number of humans HAVE played more than 30 blindfold games simultaneously -- and I believe that takes some mental super-power nearly nobody is born with. Can the power be cultivated with practice or insight? I highly doubt it.
I am more willing to believe that simple visualization can be cultivated with practice and insight -- but to what extent? For years I tried, and seemed to make no progress. And I mean none at all.
I could already visualize the board (through a sequence of moves) to a a certain, rather limited, extent, but only with great difficulty. When much younger, I twice managed to beat the "Chessmaster" chess program (remember that genuine gem?) on its lowest setting (where it moves nearly at random), at blindfold chess. But each game took hours -- and neither game lasted more than 20-some moves (because the computer, at that low setting, was playing so poorly).
Both times, the process took hours because I had to essentially memorize and repeat, again and again, the list of moves as that list gradually lengthened. And I tried to hang on, as best I could, to a mental picture -- seeing only PARTS of the board at any one time, and -- by repeating the memorized move string tediously, I explored parts of the board visually, and with great difficulty, answering questions to myself as i did so -- like can the computer's dark-squared bishop take my piece if I move it to g5? I would slowly move my "mind's eye" along a particular diagonal, struggling mightily to do so. It was exhausting.
On the other hand, I have known -- as I assume most of us have -- people who could visualize EASILY, or so it seems. And, what's odd, sometimes (by no means always) those people are not crushingly good, or even better, at chess. I assume it's because chess is still NOT all calculation, and that despite what seems to be a modern trend to diminish the idea, general principles, learned from reading and from practice followed by reflection, are still more than slightly important.
I'm starting to stray off topic, and I apologize. But I would like to point out two more somewhat related things, which many readers may wish to skip.
1) After more years of trying, I now believe that visualization skill CAN be enhanced with effort and practice, although perhaps not a great deal. I say this because I practice, often at night, in bed, simply "walking the chessboard" in my mind's eye -- attending to the color of the squares, while finding interesting geometrical patterns and such (like the fact that a chessboard is really composed of several smaller 4 x 4 boards grouped together -- with each of those smaller boards being identical, when viewed from either direction -- from white's side or from black's).
And with such practice, and a lot of work on tactics, I HAVE sensed a -- slight -- increase in my ability to visualize. I can now quickly call out the colors of randomly-named squares by "seeing" them mentally, and not merely memorizing them using a memory-system (I tried that too!). It's a bit like getting to know the streets in a town, and the location of shops, except the streets are ranks and files and the shops are squares. Familiarity can slowly be gained.
So perhaps working harder, or simply starting younger during rampant neuro-plasticity, DOES help us learn to visualize more easily and correctly. But a fair amount of effort has not helped me a LOT, unfortunately. It has only helped a little. But that's progress when compared to suspecting, for years, that progress itself was impossible.
2) Visualization seems (to me, at least) to be a separate mental skill that is only loosely, and not dependably, connected with other mental skills. Not all bright people, or even very bright people, can visualize well. I know this from experience, and it's not (I hope) a self-serving delusion. I hesitate to say this, since among chess players discussions of mental capacity seem often to inspire, uh, animosity and competitive barbs -- but on various other tests of mental acuity -- IQ tests and standardized tests (of various flavors) -- I have done quite well. I won't say how well, because I'm not trying to fluff my own feathers but am merely trying to make a point. Yet, despite very good "standardized" scores, I am merely a so-so chess player and my visualization powers are just above pitiful, despite literally decades of chess play.
Yet two of my relatives (I shall not identify which) -- while not out-scoring me on such standardized measures -- simply BAFFLE me with their ability to visualize. For example, either can find misplaced objects in their home, unseen for weeks, by simply reviewing the state of each room in their home, in detail, until they locate the object sought. I've witnessed this time and again, and many other demonstrations of their ability to simply "see" in their minds eye what they have seen before. At university, one of them used to note the page -- and location on the page -- of particular helpful sentences (which they could then quote verbatim) from university texts. I have witnessed this many times, with my own (physical) eyes.
So it seems to me that visualization is MOSTLY a gift -- and a very disparately distributed one, at that -- that can be improved with practice, but not necessarily to a large or sufficient extent.
But I'd love to be wrong about that. I'd love to hear truthful first-hand accounts of people who were not already so gifted ACTUALLY being able to improve a great deal (as opposed to my own little bit) their ability to visualize. Because the ability to visualize seems to me, anecdotally again, to explain, to a substantial extent, why some who do not otherwise dominate mentally grow to dominate at chess.
You know who you are. And I envy you, but don't begrudge you your gift. Enjoy it. I wish I could.
@iakov98
Here's a problem from the Steps method (Step 3 Extra, page 6 "Attacking Pinned Pieces") , black to move:
lichess.org/analysis/r1b1r1k1/pp2q1b1/n1p2npp/2N2p2/3PpP2/BPN1P1P1/P3Q1BP/2KR3R_b_Kq_-_0_1?color=white
I observe that after b6, the N on c5 must move, Nxa6 makes sense, then this opens black's queen attack on the Bishop on a3, Qxa3+. K must move or cover up. Let's say Kb1, then I notice that Q can take on a6 because after b6 that opens up the line for the bishop from c8 to protect a6. So I get b6 Nxa6 Qxa3+ Kb1 Qxa6 Qxa6 Bxa6. So that's a 7-ply calculation, but I didn't visualize any of the moves - just using logic - kind of like drawing arrows on lichess. So definitely M for me.
Here's a problem from the Steps method (Step 3 Extra, page 6 "Attacking Pinned Pieces") , black to move:
lichess.org/analysis/r1b1r1k1/pp2q1b1/n1p2npp/2N2p2/3PpP2/BPN1P1P1/P3Q1BP/2KR3R_b_Kq_-_0_1?color=white
I observe that after b6, the N on c5 must move, Nxa6 makes sense, then this opens black's queen attack on the Bishop on a3, Qxa3+. K must move or cover up. Let's say Kb1, then I notice that Q can take on a6 because after b6 that opens up the line for the bishop from c8 to protect a6. So I get b6 Nxa6 Qxa3+ Kb1 Qxa6 Qxa6 Bxa6. So that's a 7-ply calculation, but I didn't visualize any of the moves - just using logic - kind of like drawing arrows on lichess. So definitely M for me.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.