Why would you be preventing yourself from good board vision that way? Last time I checked boards didn'd have the coords painted on them.
When Fischer calculated his combinations, algebraic notation wasn't even used. As long as you can imagine the knight on that square, it doesn't really matter what you call it.
Jeez, I don't think about the names at all. As Druid pointed out, I just try to imagine the pieces themselves on the squares.
Why would you be preventing yourself from good board vision that way? Last time I checked boards didn'd have the coords painted on them.
When Fischer calculated his combinations, algebraic notation wasn't even used. As long as you can imagine the knight on that square, it doesn't really matter what you call it.
I know algebraic notation’s popularity is relatively new, that’s why I said “or some other notation”. The distinction I was trying to make is: do people name the squares in their head as they calculate or do they just refer to each square as “there”. All advice about increasing board vision starts with getting really comfortable with all the names of the squares. So if someone says “d5” you should be able to instantly say which color it is, which diagonals it’s on, etc.. If someone names a square then I can do those things, but it takes me a really long time and a lot of mental effort. I think part of the reason is that I never refer to the squares by name when calculating in my head.
I think that really depends on how you think. If you know all the squares "personally" you can attach properties to them like "g6 is looking dangerous at the moment because of that knight" which influences the positional evaluation. But when calculating I usually just imagine the pieces moving to the squares without "saying" anything in my head.
well, I dont have any answer here but I use "there"
but, damn good question though.. any pro answers??
But they are analyzing games so they obviously don't say "there" for the viewers' convenience. I don't think this indicates how they actually think when they play just for themselves.
Jeez, I don't think about the names at all. As Druid pointed out, I just try to imagine the pieces themselves on the squares.
This!
i move here he moves there this this this ummm c5c5c5 then whaaaaaaattt b4 okay maybe...
Hmmm, interesting. I just visualize where the pieces go. I don't think too much of the notation until I make my move.
Using the notation names might be a bit slower, but could be helpful in the longer run I suppose. I think "there" as well.
if you say here and there you can't really get into very long calculation. of course, i play blitz so i don't have to calculate more than 2 moves so it doesn't matter.
I usually don't verbalize for short sequences, and for longer sequences (or when there are many different short sequences to consider) I verbalize using abbreviated algebraic (e.g., "knight g3", "d5", "e takes d").
I find that verbalizing helps with memorizing, which is especially important when there are lots of different short sequences (so you remember which of the 6 3-move sequences you're currently thinking about the third move of) and when there are lots of moves in a sequence (since you have both an auditory and a visual cue to help memorize the line you're considering).
Sometimes I say "here" and "there", but I think it's a bad habit, which I'm trying to break, for the reason pdve gives. For a short calculation, I think it's better to not say anything, and for a long calculation, it's better to use algebraic.
I actually think it's better to not verbalize your thoughts in your head and instead try to "see" the sequences played out on the board.
I feel it's a little like speed-reading, where the first thing you learn is to stop verbalizing in your head because it slows you down.
why do you need notations for calculating???
When you are calculating moves in your head, do you name the squares in algebraic notation (or some other notation)?
When I calculate, in my head I might think something like "I move my knight there and then he moves his pawn there" instead of thinking "I move my knight to c3 and then he moves his pawn to d4". By not referring to the squares in algebraic notation, I feel that I might be preventing myself from developing good board vision.
I don't calculate always like that. Normally I just look a the position and calculate number of exchanges or known tactical pattern without any special thought process involved.
But when I have to calculate longer or more difficult variation (in TT, on Chesstempo) I represent moves to myself somewhat graphically; I just move a piece on the square I want without moving it; I just somehow highlight the square.
I actually think it's better to not verbalize your thoughts in your head and instead try to "see" the sequences played out on the board.
I feel it's a little like speed-reading, where the first thing you learn is to stop verbalizing in your head because it slows you down.
The key problem for me is not the speed of the calculation. It's remembering where I am in the calculation if it's a long one, or where I am in the forest of variations if there are lots of variations to consider. Verbalizing helps memory in both those cases, because then I have two ways of remembering where I am rather than just one way.
I posed this question to NM Dan Heisman. The following was his response:
When I am thinking to myself I don't use the names of the pieces at all. I just think about moving pieces to squares I see without verbalization. If I do verbalize, I might think "What if I move the queen to g7?" or I might just think "What if I move the queen to there?" looking at g7. And yes, I might do a capture in descriptive notation in my head such as "What if I just take the pawn?" but I never do that when verbalizing. For one thing it can be ambiguous, while in my head nothing is ambiguous! 
. Hope this helps.
Pick a random Kasparov game for calculation. They'll give you a real workout since he was that kind of player. Nigel Short also has many such games. Maybe Peter Leko too, but he has a dull very technical playing style, though I'd recommend his games if you play the Grunfeld, which is also quite dull and technical.
My calculation skills are currently changing. Before it was rook goes there, pawn goes there etc. Now when I look at the board I can sometime see shapes of the piece paths kind of like the arrow you see in videos. For some reason this is making things a little more clear. I do not automatically use notation but I am trying to learn to use it mainly so I can get quicker at reading chess books. Right now while reading with a position on a real board, I will read thru 2-3 full moves and make them at once instead of one move at a time. With simple examples I sometimes do not use the board at all.
When you are calculating moves in your head, do you name the squares in algebraic notation (or some other notation)?
When I calculate, in my head I might think something like "I move my knight there and then he moves his pawn there" instead of thinking "I move my knight to c3 and then he moves his pawn to d4". By not referring to the squares in algebraic notation, I feel that I might be preventing myself from developing good board vision.