- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Science of Chess: How does chess calculation depend on words vs. pictures?

For me it's basically 10000% spacial / visual.

I barely remember what the pieces are called, let alone how to notate my moves or the names of the squares on the board haha.

For me it's basically 10000% spacial / visual. I barely remember what the pieces are called, let alone how to notate my moves or the names of the squares on the board haha.

Interesting, thanks for posting!

Slightly off-topic: I've been playing a lot of online chess recently, using the standard 2d board. I find it surprisingly hard to switch to a physical 3d board, the pieces just don't look familiar. I wonder if this is due to my habit of picturing the 2d position in my head (as opposed to focusing on verbal descriptions).

Interesting, thanks for posting! Slightly off-topic: I've been playing a lot of online chess recently, using the standard 2d board. I find it surprisingly hard to switch to a physical 3d board, the pieces just don't look familiar. I wonder if this is due to my habit of picturing the 2d position in my head (as opposed to focusing on verbal descriptions).

@z6_6 said in #12:

Interesting, thanks for posting!

Slightly off-topic: I've been playing a lot of online chess recently, using the standard 2d board. I find it surprisingly hard to switch to a physical 3d board, the pieces just don't look familiar. I wonder if this is due to my habit of picturing the 2d position in my head (as opposed to focusing on verbal descriptions).

Thank you for reading! That's a neat question I hadn't thought of: When playing at a 3D board, do people visualize using a mental image of that 3D board or do they revert to the 2D board to calculate? Given how many people train with digital tools (or books!) the 2D board is possibly more familiar, but you'd expect a cost for translating between 2D/3D. Don't think anyone has looked at this experimentally, but it would be a fun idea.

@z6_6 said in #12: > Interesting, thanks for posting! > > Slightly off-topic: I've been playing a lot of online chess recently, using the standard 2d board. I find it surprisingly hard to switch to a physical 3d board, the pieces just don't look familiar. I wonder if this is due to my habit of picturing the 2d position in my head (as opposed to focusing on verbal descriptions). Thank you for reading! That's a neat question I hadn't thought of: When playing at a 3D board, do people visualize using a mental image of that 3D board or do they revert to the 2D board to calculate? Given how many people train with digital tools (or books!) the 2D board is possibly more familiar, but you'd expect a cost for translating between 2D/3D. Don't think anyone has looked at this experimentally, but it would be a fun idea.

In identifying pins and ways to break pins, thus resolving the liability of a prospectively loose piece, awareness/identification might seem more relevant than visualization or verbalization.

In identifying pins and ways to break pins, thus resolving the liability of a prospectively loose piece, awareness/identification might seem more relevant than visualization or verbalization.

@Graque said in #10:

Thanks for the interesting blog post! I'm curious about your thoughts on Aidan Rayner's course, since you have a fair, evidence-based perspective.

On his web page he says stuff like: "Training the adult brain is totally different to training the child brain. Adults can be just as good at Chess learning and improvement, but need to approach it differently." That sounds like snake-oil to me, but I'd be happy if it's true!

Thanks for reading! I'm looking forward to getting started with his 5-part course on visualization either this coming week or soon after. My first take on the bit you quoted is that adults are indeed capable of learning/improvement. I often see reductionist takes on this suggesting that once you're an adult, you're basically completely ossified in terms of acquiring skills, and that extreme perspective isn't right. However, "just as good" depends a lot on what you mean by that - typical gains given time-on-task? The height of one's "ceiling" for improvement? Something else? Anyways, I'm excited to dig into the course and maybe write more broadly about adult learning and skill acquisition in the near future.

@Graque said in #10: > Thanks for the interesting blog post! I'm curious about your thoughts on Aidan Rayner's course, since you have a fair, evidence-based perspective. > > On his web page he says stuff like: "Training the adult brain is totally different to training the child brain. Adults can be just as good at Chess learning and improvement, but need to approach it differently." That sounds like snake-oil to me, but I'd be happy if it's true! Thanks for reading! I'm looking forward to getting started with his 5-part course on visualization either this coming week or soon after. My first take on the bit you quoted is that adults are indeed capable of learning/improvement. I often see reductionist takes on this suggesting that once you're an adult, you're basically completely ossified in terms of acquiring skills, and that extreme perspective isn't right. However, "just as good" depends a lot on what you mean by that - typical gains given time-on-task? The height of one's "ceiling" for improvement? Something else? Anyways, I'm excited to dig into the course and maybe write more broadly about adult learning and skill acquisition in the near future.

First of all, excellent article.

I do play blindfold chess, up to 5 boards in simuls. And its True, I "imagine" no images at all, but just know where the pieces are and where they can go from there.
Also, the visual and auditory memories can be completa together to enhance the overall memória.

First of all, excellent article. I do play blindfold chess, up to 5 boards in simuls. And its True, I "imagine" no images at all, but just know where the pieces are and where they can go from there. Also, the visual and auditory memories can be completa together to enhance the overall memória.

@ElephantMushroom said in #17:

First of all, excellent article.

I do play blindfold chess, up to 5 boards in simuls. And its True, I "imagine" no images at all, but just know where the pieces are and where they can go from there.
Also, the visual and auditory memories can be completa together to enhance the overall memória.

That's really interesting to hear - thanks for sharing this. That your experience is spatial without being visual is neat, as is the inclusion of where the pieces can go. I'm thinking about developing a memory study that the second idea is very relevant for. Thank you for reading and glad you enjoyed this post!

@ElephantMushroom said in #17: > First of all, excellent article. > > I do play blindfold chess, up to 5 boards in simuls. And its True, I "imagine" no images at all, but just know where the pieces are and where they can go from there. > Also, the visual and auditory memories can be completa together to enhance the overall memória. That's really interesting to hear - thanks for sharing this. That your experience is spatial without being visual is neat, as is the inclusion of where the pieces can go. I'm thinking about developing a memory study that the second idea is very relevant for. Thank you for reading and glad you enjoyed this post!

but is "where" not at least visual, if you close your eyes on anything, one still has an internal notion of here or there and everywhere (being perhaps not all conjured immediatly for the minds eye, but for the mind total, including the minds eye).

overall memoria. that is good. I am now looking at the discussion from the end.. eventually I will reach the blog. pseudo-paralell-y . long time scale..

so yes all senses, even those we do not talk about often in general language as there is no way to talk about but as an object of science.. The proprioception available internal senses recruitment potential for imagination. I think we should just do like we often do, allow a word to extend from its restricted original example inducced (and restricted at first) domain.

sure our eye is also how we emulate verbal communication and also can use 2D communication directly (it is called drawing, painting, dancing (ok 3D now, if not 4D but hey, let me do my argumentation now, and alos still retina bottle neck). That is perhaps that 2D and all communication being under that low dimensionality, even with sound, we would not know how to directly talk about the other spatial senses. (hearing being spatial too, but for our slow conscous logic parsing, we tend to use only the 1d noodle string version).

but is "where" not at least visual, if you close your eyes on anything, one still has an internal notion of here or there and everywhere (being perhaps not all conjured immediatly for the minds eye, but for the mind total, including the minds eye). overall memoria. that is good. I am now looking at the discussion from the end.. eventually I will reach the blog. pseudo-paralell-y . long time scale.. so yes all senses, even those we do not talk about often in general language as there is no way to talk about but as an object of science.. The proprioception available internal senses recruitment potential for imagination. I think we should just do like we often do, allow a word to extend from its restricted original example inducced (and restricted at first) domain. sure our eye is also how we emulate verbal communication and also can use 2D communication directly (it is called drawing, painting, dancing (ok 3D now, if not 4D but hey, let me do my argumentation now, and alos still retina bottle neck). That is perhaps that 2D and all communication being under that low dimensionality, even with sound, we would not know how to directly talk about the other spatial senses. (hearing being spatial too, but for our slow conscous logic parsing, we tend to use only the 1d noodle string version).