lichess.org
Donate

Insights into Chess Visualization Skills

Bro in puzzle number 2, only the square names are mentioned, not the pieces.

“ White: h4, h5, g6 Black: g7, e5 : g8 - Black to play.”

Btw it was a great blog and thanks for providing some really interesting and valuable info <3

Bro in puzzle number 2, only the square names are mentioned, not the pieces. “ White: h4, h5, g6 Black: g7, e5 : g8 - Black to play.” Btw it was a great blog and thanks for providing some really interesting and valuable info <3

As someone with visual aphantasia I found the post very interesting. There's so little research done on the subject.

As someone with visual aphantasia I found the post very interesting. There's so little research done on the subject.

@overcooker, how is it to play chess if you can't imagine the board at all in your mind? How do you manage to calculate moves in your head, and observe a potential future position? Very interesting topic to me. I think that chess visualization can also work as an abstract mental representation of the concepts and ideas in a position. Almost like an intuition with certain abstract visual features associated with it.

@overcooker, how is it to play chess if you can't imagine the board at all in your mind? How do you manage to calculate moves in your head, and observe a potential future position? Very interesting topic to me. I think that chess visualization can also work as an abstract mental representation of the concepts and ideas in a position. Almost like an intuition with certain abstract visual features associated with it.

@thecreative I have almost complete aphantasia and I use 1) spatial relationships, 2) tactical sequences, and 3) words to try to describe it in a way that I can remember since any extremely faint and intangible image I can conjure up will definitely leave my mind within a split second.

I took a cognitive psychology course and one thing we covered was that the brain typically experiences spatial relationships and visuals differently. I.e., seeing an image is distinct from some intuitive feeling of where things are in relation to each other. I rely on those intuitive (spatial) feelings a lot. Fwiw I've always been super good at math and pattern recognition but terrible with art, imagination, and visualization.

Also, I find it more doable to look at a board and try to imagine a piece not being on a specific square, or keep a list of squares in mind like that, than to visualize the whole board myself with that one piece missing. So I rely on stuff like that. But TL;DR you can chunk together by spatial relationships between pieces, the effects of tactical sequences, and labeling terms/making constructs that you can attach intuition to (and then you can learn when those constructs are relevant and important).

As for observing a potential future position, it's very difficult, but I try to look at the board and imagine what it's like to have those pieces moved (still mostly relying on spatial intuition) and see if there's any immediate tactics there and otherwise what I'd intuitively evaluate it at. Just my experience, would love to hear yours and anyone else's!

I love this topic and wanted to maybe add a new angle to the discussion which could be its relation to ADHD and ASD? I'm diagnosed with ADHD and I think it's fairly likely that I'm an undiagnosed aspie. I wonder how those two could relate to visual abilities and in particular in chess. ASD folks tend to have spikier intelligence profiles and so some might be really good at visualization and manipulating images whereas others might be really good at pattern recognition (or neither). Just my two cents. It might be cool to add an option for additional info like that in the survey. Would love more posts like this!

@thecreative I have almost complete aphantasia and I use 1) spatial relationships, 2) tactical sequences, and 3) words to try to describe it in a way that I can remember since any extremely faint and intangible image I can conjure up will definitely leave my mind within a split second. I took a cognitive psychology course and one thing we covered was that the brain typically experiences spatial relationships and visuals differently. I.e., seeing an image is distinct from some intuitive feeling of where things are in relation to each other. I rely on those intuitive (spatial) feelings a lot. Fwiw I've always been super good at math and pattern recognition but terrible with art, imagination, and visualization. Also, I find it more doable to look at a board and try to imagine a piece not being on a specific square, or keep a list of squares in mind like that, than to visualize the whole board myself with that one piece missing. So I rely on stuff like that. But TL;DR you can chunk together by spatial relationships between pieces, the effects of tactical sequences, and labeling terms/making constructs that you can attach intuition to (and then you can learn when those constructs are relevant and important). As for observing a potential future position, it's very difficult, but I try to look at the board and imagine what it's like to have those pieces moved (still mostly relying on spatial intuition) and see if there's any immediate tactics there and otherwise what I'd intuitively evaluate it at. Just my experience, would love to hear yours and anyone else's! I love this topic and wanted to maybe add a new angle to the discussion which could be its relation to ADHD and ASD? I'm diagnosed with ADHD and I think it's fairly likely that I'm an undiagnosed aspie. I wonder how those two could relate to visual abilities and in particular in chess. ASD folks tend to have spikier intelligence profiles and so some might be really good at visualization and manipulating images whereas others might be really good at pattern recognition (or neither). Just my two cents. It might be cool to add an option for additional info like that in the survey. Would love more posts like this!

@thecreative said in #4:

@overcooker, how is it to play chess if you can't imagine the board at all in your mind? How do you manage to calculate moves in your head, and observe a potential future position? Very interesting topic to me. I think that chess visualization can also work as an abstract mental representation of the concepts and ideas in a position. Almost like an intuition with certain abstract visual features associated with it.

Right now I still suck at it, but I still have hope because other people with aphantasia can get higher ratings. I'm not sure if there are GMs with aphantasia, but I'm sure everything helps when you play at very high levels.

Right now I have to draw a lot if I want to calculate anything, I don't know how I'd do in OTB games. Even drawing though can get confusing though because after a while I forget in what order I moved the pieces. On top of that, like @JoeySt, I've also been diagnosed with ADHD, and reading books for me is a big challenge without getting distracted. Video tutorials don't help, they move too fast and after a while I'm not paying attention anymore.

For a long time, since I learned about aphantasia, I couldn't understand how people could "visualize" things in their mind, however recently I learned about what some people call auditory hyperphantasia, which is something I have: the ability to recreate any kind of sound, voices or music in my mind. From what I've read there are people who experience this in different forms, like not being able to clearly listen to the words of the music, or the music is not very clear, while I have almost complete control.

My visual aphantasia is that most of the time I don't see anything. Sometimes when I focus on something, like a memory, I sort of visualize something, but I can't really focus on the image. It's like having it on my peripheral vision and I can't look at it, but even less than that because it's "foggy", and it happens only in a fraction of a second before it goes away.

@thecreative said in #4: > @overcooker, how is it to play chess if you can't imagine the board at all in your mind? How do you manage to calculate moves in your head, and observe a potential future position? Very interesting topic to me. I think that chess visualization can also work as an abstract mental representation of the concepts and ideas in a position. Almost like an intuition with certain abstract visual features associated with it. Right now I still suck at it, but I still have hope because other people with aphantasia can get higher ratings. I'm not sure if there are GMs with aphantasia, but I'm sure everything helps when you play at very high levels. Right now I have to draw a lot if I want to calculate anything, I don't know how I'd do in OTB games. Even drawing though can get confusing though because after a while I forget in what order I moved the pieces. On top of that, like @JoeySt, I've also been diagnosed with ADHD, and reading books for me is a big challenge without getting distracted. Video tutorials don't help, they move too fast and after a while I'm not paying attention anymore. For a long time, since I learned about aphantasia, I couldn't understand how people could "visualize" things in their mind, however recently I learned about what some people call auditory hyperphantasia, which is something I have: the ability to recreate any kind of sound, voices or music in my mind. From what I've read there are people who experience this in different forms, like not being able to clearly listen to the words of the music, or the music is not very clear, while I have almost complete control. My visual aphantasia is that most of the time I don't see anything. Sometimes when I focus on something, like a memory, I sort of visualize something, but I can't really focus on the image. It's like having it on my peripheral vision and I can't look at it, but even less than that because it's "foggy", and it happens only in a fraction of a second before it goes away.

ьооолшшоооьььььь

ьооолшшоооьььььь

I think that it's a matter of how much training you put into chess, not a consequence of your rating. I used to play blind chess all the time 25 years ago because I had a friend who was losing his sight and slowly became blind. My rating always sucked, but I learned to play blind so I could keep playing with him without an unfair advantage. It was actually a pretty useful skill. We used to commute together and play in the train and the subway without needing a chess board. Sadly he went on full disability after losing his sight and we lost touch. I stopped playing chess after that for almost 20 years. I am now incapable of playing blind because I didn't keep up with training.

I think that it's a matter of how much training you put into chess, not a consequence of your rating. I used to play blind chess all the time 25 years ago because I had a friend who was losing his sight and slowly became blind. My rating always sucked, but I learned to play blind so I could keep playing with him without an unfair advantage. It was actually a pretty useful skill. We used to commute together and play in the train and the subway without needing a chess board. Sadly he went on full disability after losing his sight and we lost touch. I stopped playing chess after that for almost 20 years. I am now incapable of playing blind because I didn't keep up with training.

about figures, and low experimental numbers.. It might be good not to smoothly interpolate the data points, and instead use that opportunity to also illustrate more of the data, either by a cloud (if there is any left, given the binning) or some uncertainty signal. minimally, not joining the data points with a smooth curve. I know you did make a point about the confidence to attribute to a non-linear appearance of result (the inverted bump, lacking english here) contradicting expectations. I think the figure could have been more telling, without the smoothing, and itself let us know of the sample size, and non-curve nature of the display.

let us be part of the reasoning, by showing as much as possible of the data, and its sampling. This is not a feedback on the prose. I have not read enough.. I think these are good questions..

about figures, and low experimental numbers.. It might be good not to smoothly interpolate the data points, and instead use that opportunity to also illustrate more of the data, either by a cloud (if there is any left, given the binning) or some uncertainty signal. minimally, not joining the data points with a smooth curve. I know you did make a point about the confidence to attribute to a non-linear appearance of result (the inverted bump, lacking english here) contradicting expectations. I think the figure could have been more telling, without the smoothing, and itself let us know of the sample size, and non-curve nature of the display. let us be part of the reasoning, by showing as much as possible of the data, and its sampling. This is not a feedback on the prose. I have not read enough.. I think these are good questions..