- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Visualize as picture or as formulas?

#12

@alexkrk - This info and previous forum article may be of interest to you. .Some people can't visualize very well or at all. The name of the malady is Aphantasia. I have it, and I can only hold a mental image for a brief moment. This makes blindfold chess impossible for me. What's weird is that mental images in my dreams are quite vivid.

@alexkrk - This info and previous forum article may be of interest to you. .Some people can't visualize very well or at all. The name of the malady is Aphantasia. I have it, and I can only hold a mental image for a brief moment. This makes blindfold chess impossible for me. What's weird is that mental images in my dreams are quite vivid. - www.scientificamerican.com/article/when-the-minds-eye-is-blind1/ - I recall reading some good info on blindfold play by GM Rueben Fine. He was a renowned blindfold player. - :] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphantasia - - https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/why-am-i-so-freacking-bad-at-blindfold-chess#10 -
#13

I feel like this should be discussed more for chess improvement. Maybe stronger players who give advice are naturally good at it or just forget what it was like to struggle with it. I suspect people vary a lot in their natural ability. I'm not good at it, but when I finally worked on it, I felt like my chess improved a lot, and I wish that I had done it earlier, because it not only helps with playing, and your tactical awareness, but makes it easier to study and read books as well. It's something that will show results at any level, even for absolute beginners.

There are lots of tools and apps to help now. I think I used Chessvis or something similar for a while. One exercise is a blank board and a coordinate pops up and you have to click the square. I think the one I used tested how many you can get in 30 seconds. Another exercise is when a coordinate pops up and you have to say whether it's a light or dark square. You start to get a sense of the geography of the board and light and dark complexes. Then there are exercises which involve pieces. One is to study a position for a minute or so and then try to recreate it. Another is to study a position, read a sequence of (increasingly more) moves, and then solve a basic tactic in your mind. I used the Visualise series on Chessable, which is excellent, but I think you can get the same thing for free now at websites like Listudy. There was a chess podcast at one point that just read moves slowly from the starting position and you tried to follow as long as you could. I used to fall asleep to it for a while.

I feel like this should be discussed more for chess improvement. Maybe stronger players who give advice are naturally good at it or just forget what it was like to struggle with it. I suspect people vary a lot in their natural ability. I'm not good at it, but when I finally worked on it, I felt like my chess improved a lot, and I wish that I had done it earlier, because it not only helps with playing, and your tactical awareness, but makes it easier to study and read books as well. It's something that will show results at any level, even for absolute beginners. There are lots of tools and apps to help now. I think I used Chessvis or something similar for a while. One exercise is a blank board and a coordinate pops up and you have to click the square. I think the one I used tested how many you can get in 30 seconds. Another exercise is when a coordinate pops up and you have to say whether it's a light or dark square. You start to get a sense of the geography of the board and light and dark complexes. Then there are exercises which involve pieces. One is to study a position for a minute or so and then try to recreate it. Another is to study a position, read a sequence of (increasingly more) moves, and then solve a basic tactic in your mind. I used the Visualise series on Chessable, which is excellent, but I think you can get the same thing for free now at websites like Listudy. There was a chess podcast at one point that just read moves slowly from the starting position and you tried to follow as long as you could. I used to fall asleep to it for a while.
#14

@keatanpatel said in #5:

Even the best players cannot focus on the entire board in their mind at one go. They just have better 'chess memory', and they are able to store positions in their brain easily because they are so used to seeing them. They are able to task switch between different areas of the position. Interestingly, if you gave masters a position on the board which was random, and did not have a chess feel, ie. pawns randomly placed king randomly placed pieces everywhere, they would find it much more difficult because they cannot link the position back to something and they are not used to seeing it.

and your source is what ?

@keatanpatel said in #5: > Even the best players cannot focus on the entire board in their mind at one go. They just have better 'chess memory', and they are able to store positions in their brain easily because they are so used to seeing them. They are able to task switch between different areas of the position. Interestingly, if you gave masters a position on the board which was random, and did not have a chess feel, ie. pawns randomly placed king randomly placed pieces everywhere, they would find it much more difficult because they cannot link the position back to something and they are not used to seeing it. and your source is what ?
#15

Just about the title question.

I suggest op find the lichess blog with "google" in title, about memory offload (or unloading) and the refereed psychology of learning papers about, which show that attention engaging tasks enable learning, more than the official task made explicit used as motivating goal was learned. So I say formulas or geometrics associations or drawing patterns that one would construct oneself (not applying other's recipes, that might be too passive), are likely to have learning tangential effect of the kind that might not need to actively reproduce the constructed congruent findings. Many angles don't hurt. And we can have tasks just to pay attention at the context of the task. I do it, naturally, often on the tangent... hoping for some centripetal force eventually getting me somewhere.. (it has in the past, not in chess, too soon to tell).

Picture opposed to formulas? If about quizzing one self with pictures or rote memorization, would there not be some hidden formula seeking anyway, not being verbalized. I doubt everyone has the stamina for mere repetitions.. There is something called mental fatigue that goes way down to the neurobiology of synapases.. The macroscopic notion would be "boredom".. But to each its own. or their own.

The question can be understood as a blindfold prowess objective or an chess improvement. I usually assume the latter. As we need visualization to choose among more than one possible move candidate (i.e where planning begins, but does not end). We need to be able to visualize position features as sub-goals in our plan set imagination.
Not always about whole board but merging sub-regions not yet visible with the visible (hard task for me).

Blindfold being about sharpening of such skill, not likely to be learned without learning chess itself first. Well.. too sharp a learning curve for me..

Just about the title question. I suggest op find the lichess blog with "google" in title, about memory offload (or unloading) and the refereed psychology of learning papers about, which show that attention engaging tasks enable learning, more than the official task made explicit used as motivating goal was learned. So I say formulas or geometrics associations or drawing patterns that one would construct oneself (not applying other's recipes, that might be too passive), are likely to have learning tangential effect of the kind that might not need to actively reproduce the constructed congruent findings. Many angles don't hurt. And we can have tasks just to pay attention at the context of the task. I do it, naturally, often on the tangent... hoping for some centripetal force eventually getting me somewhere.. (it has in the past, not in chess, too soon to tell). Picture opposed to formulas? If about quizzing one self with pictures or rote memorization, would there not be some hidden formula seeking anyway, not being verbalized. I doubt everyone has the stamina for mere repetitions.. There is something called mental fatigue that goes way down to the neurobiology of synapases.. The macroscopic notion would be "boredom".. But to each its own. or their own. The question can be understood as a blindfold prowess objective or an chess improvement. I usually assume the latter. As we need visualization to choose among more than one possible move candidate (i.e where planning begins, but does not end). We need to be able to visualize position features as sub-goals in our plan set imagination. Not always about whole board but merging sub-regions not yet visible with the visible (hard task for me). Blindfold being about sharpening of such skill, not likely to be learned without learning chess itself first. Well.. too sharp a learning curve for me..
#16

@njswift said in #13:

I feel like this should be discussed more for chess improvement. Maybe stronger players who give advice are naturally good at it or just forget what it was like to struggle with it. I suspect people vary a lot in their natural ability. I'm not good at it, but when I finally worked on it, I felt like my chess improved a lot, and I wish that I had done it earlier, because it not only helps with playing, and your tactical awareness, but makes it easier to study and read books as well. It's something that will show results at any level, even for absolute beginners.

There are lots of tools and apps to help now. I think I used Chessvis or something similar for a while. One exercise is a blank board and a coordinate pops up and you have to click the square. I think the one I used tested how many you can get in 30 seconds. Another exercise is when a coordinate pops up and you have to say whether it's a light or dark square. You start to get a sense of the geography of the board and light and dark complexes. Then there are exercises which involve pieces. One is to study a position for a minute or so and then try to recreate it. Another is to study a position, read a sequence of (increasingly more) moves, and then solve a basic tactic in your mind. I used the Visualise series on Chessable, which is excellent, but I think you can get the same thing for free now at websites like Listudy. There was a chess podcast at one point that just read moves slowly from the starting position and you tried to follow as long as you could. I used to fall asleep to it for a while.

"are naturally good at" no, that is crap. maybe.. no..

show me a sport in which no 1 person is best by accident.

naturally good at is an excuse for failure and misery.

@njswift said in #13: > I feel like this should be discussed more for chess improvement. Maybe stronger players who give advice are naturally good at it or just forget what it was like to struggle with it. I suspect people vary a lot in their natural ability. I'm not good at it, but when I finally worked on it, I felt like my chess improved a lot, and I wish that I had done it earlier, because it not only helps with playing, and your tactical awareness, but makes it easier to study and read books as well. It's something that will show results at any level, even for absolute beginners. > > There are lots of tools and apps to help now. I think I used Chessvis or something similar for a while. One exercise is a blank board and a coordinate pops up and you have to click the square. I think the one I used tested how many you can get in 30 seconds. Another exercise is when a coordinate pops up and you have to say whether it's a light or dark square. You start to get a sense of the geography of the board and light and dark complexes. Then there are exercises which involve pieces. One is to study a position for a minute or so and then try to recreate it. Another is to study a position, read a sequence of (increasingly more) moves, and then solve a basic tactic in your mind. I used the Visualise series on Chessable, which is excellent, but I think you can get the same thing for free now at websites like Listudy. There was a chess podcast at one point that just read moves slowly from the starting position and you tried to follow as long as you could. I used to fall asleep to it for a while. "are naturally good at" no, that is crap. maybe.. no.. show me a sport in which no 1 person is best by accident. naturally good at is an excuse for failure and misery.
#17
<Comment deleted by user>
#18

naturally good how does that become "by accident"?

excuse for failure and misery? saying that "one is best from being naturally good at it", is an excuse for oneself not to reach the same level by virtue of courage, effort and determination, a recipe for failure and misery ... at the task object of being good at it?

all the top people on any sports have earned their place by conscious determination and meritous labor from an equal chance background? They owe nothing to their luck of birth? including development environment, free time (and opportunities) for training that their social environment would support.

I get the intent though. Not to give up because others appear to have lots of accumulated skills being good at it already. Well, I would agree for improvement. but doubt about reaching same level from whatever age we start being serious at the complex task object of the "being good at" (generic phrasing in case not talking same thing).

Chess is still a performance art, at least what I assume chess might mean here. The real chess stuff. OTB and blindfold performances, mainly. It takes years of being at it diligently... So given the age in ones lifetime where we get at it, there might be appearance of "naturally being good at it" more than self when comparing. Not sure all that difference in skillset deployment can be worked hard or methodically to reach the same levels of skills that took that long to hone.. Not saying it can't either, but need research beyond imitation learning, and acknowledging the differences in state of leanring or skill internalization might be a important variable toward such theory of learning.

naturally good how does that become "by accident"? excuse for failure and misery? saying that "one is best from being naturally good at it", is an excuse for oneself not to reach the same level by virtue of courage, effort and determination, a recipe for failure and misery ... at the task object of being good at it? all the top people on any sports have earned their place by conscious determination and meritous labor from an equal chance background? They owe nothing to their luck of birth? including development environment, free time (and opportunities) for training that their social environment would support. I get the intent though. Not to give up because others appear to have lots of accumulated skills being good at it already. Well, I would agree for improvement. but doubt about reaching same level from whatever age we start being serious at the complex task object of the "being good at" (generic phrasing in case not talking same thing). Chess is still a performance art, at least what I assume chess might mean here. The real chess stuff. OTB and blindfold performances, mainly. It takes years of being at it diligently... So given the age in ones lifetime where we get at it, there might be appearance of "naturally being good at it" more than self when comparing. Not sure all that difference in skillset deployment can be worked hard or methodically to reach the same levels of skills that took that long to hone.. Not saying it can't either, but need research beyond imitation learning, and acknowledging the differences in state of leanring or skill internalization might be a important variable toward such theory of learning.
#19

@alexkrk said in #1:

struggle with visualization
a) Yes for most people chess visualization is difficult.
You generally get better as you improve overall in chess as visualization is a big part of calculation. IMO, most FIDE experts (2000+) or better can do blindfold reasonably well even if they never trained it.

b) You do really need to know board geometry and colours of squares where diagonals and ranks intersect - instantly.
You can do knight tours of the board where you start from a a square and land only once on each square. There are lots of free applications that query you on board geometry / square colours. They can also show you positions starting with fewer pieces and longer view time and then ask you questions about the position. They can reveal some of the pieces to makes thing easier or put black or white buttons on occupied squares etc.

c) Struggles to recover blindfold chess skills
About ?3 or 4 years ago, I restarted playing blindfold games and I was much much worse than I expected - hopeless even. It was harder than I expected to recover my former blind chess skills. It took me 18 months to partially recover to 1400-1500 LiChess Glecko Maia level (1050-1150 real rating) playing games.
I played Maia Chess (?1000-1700) on the free Lucas Chess which includes many really weak engines. I used a chess ladder approach and started with the lame Aqua2 engine (?400-600 rating) and advanced to the next engine when I won two games in a row one white and one black. I supplemented my games efforts with visualization / blindfold applications and apps.

At the beginning, you often lose track of many pieces and lose badly. As you go on, you tend to not lose track of pieces and eventually if a game is interrupted, you can even restart and know where all the pieces are but it takes lots of frustration to get to here!

d) Lots of blindfold sites and free Android apps etc that help with blindfold chess.
See the links included in these topics:

https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/how-long-will-it-take-to-master-blind-chess?page=1

https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/how-long-will-it-take-to-master-blind-chess?page=1

For me it took me 3 times as long as expected to get only a partial recovery of my former blindfold games skill. I could not learn any Keres games and play them in my head like before. Some failure and lots of frustration but overall a positive experience. I was really pleased when I could stop and resume a game multiple times with no problems remembering the position - I felt that I earned this!
Cheers

@alexkrk said in #1: > struggle with visualization a) Yes for most people chess visualization is difficult. You generally get better as you improve overall in chess as visualization is a big part of calculation. IMO, most FIDE experts (2000+) or better can do blindfold reasonably well even if they never trained it. b) You do really need to know board geometry and colours of squares where diagonals and ranks intersect - instantly. You can do knight tours of the board where you start from a a square and land only once on each square. There are lots of free applications that query you on board geometry / square colours. They can also show you positions starting with fewer pieces and longer view time and then ask you questions about the position. They can reveal some of the pieces to makes thing easier or put black or white buttons on occupied squares etc. c) Struggles to recover blindfold chess skills About ?3 or 4 years ago, I restarted playing blindfold games and I was much much worse than I expected - hopeless even. It was harder than I expected to recover my former blind chess skills. It took me 18 months to partially recover to 1400-1500 LiChess Glecko Maia level (1050-1150 real rating) playing games. I played Maia Chess (?1000-1700) on the free Lucas Chess which includes many really weak engines. I used a chess ladder approach and started with the lame Aqua2 engine (?400-600 rating) and advanced to the next engine when I won two games in a row one white and one black. I supplemented my games efforts with visualization / blindfold applications and apps. At the beginning, you often lose track of many pieces and lose badly. As you go on, you tend to not lose track of pieces and eventually if a game is interrupted, you can even restart and know where all the pieces are but it takes lots of frustration to get to here! d) Lots of blindfold sites and free Android apps etc that help with blindfold chess. See the links included in these topics: https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/how-long-will-it-take-to-master-blind-chess?page=1 https://lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/how-long-will-it-take-to-master-blind-chess?page=1 For me it took me 3 times as long as expected to get only a partial recovery of my former blindfold games skill. I could not learn any Keres games and play them in my head like before. Some failure and lots of frustration but overall a positive experience. I was really pleased when I could stop and resume a game multiple times with no problems remembering the position - I felt that I earned this! Cheers
#20

@alexkrk said in #1:

picture or my formula
For me, it is neither but something like an abstract concept with a faint visual component but more like a flat sparse visual. You have the constructs of the board and of how the pieces move but the model is a sparse one with a minimum of details from the external world.

Sometimes, when my visualization was working real well, I would see actual pieces. For example I could focus on a piece and see the sideview of an actual rook or knight like a 3D effect. This 3D was exceptional and it only happened in brief parts of 4 or 5 OTB games. It always felt strange, scary and weirdly intense!

If I play a short opening variation in my head, I do not see any board or pieces but I can usually set up the final position on a board.
Cheers
PS I vaguely recall some online GM saying it takes about 2 years to get good at visualization. I read some book or something that gave formulae for square colours etc. If a formula is a natural way for you to approach square colours etc then that approach probably best suits you. Whatever you use, you need to know the colour of a square immediately.

@alexkrk said in #1: > picture or my formula For me, it is neither but something like an abstract concept with a faint visual component but more like a flat sparse visual. You have the constructs of the board and of how the pieces move but the model is a sparse one with a minimum of details from the external world. Sometimes, when my visualization was working real well, I would see actual pieces. For example I could focus on a piece and see the sideview of an actual rook or knight like a 3D effect. This 3D was exceptional and it only happened in brief parts of 4 or 5 OTB games. It always felt strange, scary and weirdly intense! If I play a short opening variation in my head, I do not see any board or pieces but I can usually set up the final position on a board. Cheers PS I vaguely recall some online GM saying it takes about 2 years to get good at visualization. I read some book or something that gave formulae for square colours etc. If a formula is a natural way for you to approach square colours etc then that approach probably best suits you. Whatever you use, you need to know the colour of a square immediately.

This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.