Setting up Positions on a Board to Study?

Hello, All.

I have begun reading the books for the Steppenmethode (the Dutch "Step" method) and the Artur Yusupov series of books (build, boost, and evolve your chess, 3 book per each of 3 levels).  I am a bit surprised, but both are emphatic that the positions in the diagrams must be set up on a board.  These days, I typically follow move orders in my head (unless I get confused), if a sequence is given; but the books emphasize playing out the move orders and setting up each diagrammed position.

What is the benefit of this?  Has anyone experienced a difference?  I mean, at this point (1700+), I'd imagine players become much more fluid with blindfold play, imagining positions, and imagining potential move sequences anyway, so what does a set up board provide, if anything?  Why the emphasis?

Activate "muscle memory" and 3d-vision for patterns ?

Now that you mention it, maybe.  When I come to think about it, I guess I have had difficulty going from playing online and looking at book diagrams to playing OTB. Hmmm...

[COMMENT DELETED]

Oh, I see how it's going to be.  Nevermind, deleting and untracking.

i suck at blindfold but i can visulate it atleast for like 10-30 moves depending on the opening. but forget where the pawns are

What is the benefit of this?

To some, there is no benefit.  Some players are easily able to visualize positions on a 2D computer screen or magazine, for example, just as easily as an on 3D board. 

You have to decide for yourself if taking the time to set everything up on a board works for you.  Everyone will be different.

I've determined it makes no difference to me.  And for me this is good, because it's much faster using today's chess GUIs (software) to set everything up.  I can then also get an engine's evaluation of the position, with a click of the button.  I can also save the position for later.

My friend Neal and I participated in an over-the-board chess tournament last weekend.  I noticed during Neal's games that he was not staring at the board at all, but at his little MonRoi device!!!  To him, THAT was easier for him, than studying the position on the board.

Again, everyone will be different.  Don't let someone tell you otherwise.

while his post didn't provide anything to really back up his ultimate claim, at least he cited a source. you, on the other hand, have contributed nothing. like i said, a non-contributor.

you don't give any reasons as to why the source is not legitimate.

you don't contribute. the amount of time you've spent on these forums doesn't really matter.

i'm here to help though!

I'm not sure if you've read the paper or know what procedural memory is, but I am not sure the paper has much to do with looking at a position that is set up on the board.

Now, if you wanted to claim that Yusupov's further advice, that one should work out solutions by hand if one can't figure out the answer through imagining, then you'd still have some explaining and interpreting to do.  Also, if you look at the method in the paper, there is a clear cut, definitively singular sequence of keys that are to be typed, and this kind of "muscle memory" is valuable for remembering.  However, it is difficult for me to think that these sorts of context-intdependent sequences carry over into context-dependent chess arrangements.  I mean, maybe they do, but I don't know.  It's not immediately obvious to me.

What kind of standard do you have for fact substantiation, if not methodically controlled studies?

You probably have a good point.  I am going to do some of the lessons in the abovementioned books with a board, then do some without, just to see if I perceive any difference.

My son's chess coach recommends not just using a board but using the same board he'll play with in tournaments to reinforce visual recall.

We haven't found it makes a real difference either way, and there is a big benefit to doing the position from the book or computer directly, and that is you can get through more positions if you don't have to worry about setting them up.  Also, you avoid the tempation of moving the pieces if the goal is to solve a position entirely in your head, as you have to do in a real game.

I play on a board by myself all the time with openings and positions.. i think it helps me out a lot to visually see it rather than in a book or online.

http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Murphy%27s_law_application_for_antigravitatory_cats

When it comes to openings, I can definitely see that.  That's when the procedural/muscle memory could really come into play.  However, Yusupov's courses and the Steppenmethode aren't geared toward openings, so far as I've seen.

10/10  The physics equation had me dying. 

Yesterday I read a post about somebody who had problems getting used to three-dimensional pieces because they had only played on line. Setting up each position on the board would probably prevent that from happening and not put the player at a disadvantage in an OTB game/tournament.

Personally, I prefer setting up the position in Fritz and then, playing through the series of moves and the discussion.

That way, I can simply go back to the beginning and step through the process again and again, by simply clicking.  

I'm also able to save the "game," and come back again the next day to replay through the moves over and over again.

In the introduction, Yusupov instructs, "On absoltuely no account may you get help from a computer!"

Using a computer to play out the moves is not the same as getting help from the computer.