Can you visualize the Chessboard as an adult.

I'm curious how many of you can visualize the Chessboard and have learned this as an adult. So players that have learned this before the age of 18 don't count. 

Answer these questions/categories:

1. Yes, I can see the board and the pieces as clear in my mind as I do on a real board.

2. I kind of see  the board and pieces move, but its not completely clear but I can play blindfold that way and calculate 6 moves deep (12 ply) without problems.

3. Is it a 3d or 2d board that you see?

4. No, but I can remember the moves (PGN style), but don't see the pieces at all or the board and can calculate pretty deep just by using my memory that way. 

5. Can't see the  board or pieces at all in my mind and are limited to 4 moves or less.

This subject interests me because in interviews I have noticed that even for masters it is sometimes not completely clear how they can play blindfold chess for example. I have read up on this subject and the opinions vary why some people can do it and others not.

Thanks for reading this. 

I have trouble seeing the board when it's right in front of me.

It's the chessboard the one who got me visualized for too long

Ok, I actually find this question interesting. So I'll take it more seriously. 

I can't visualize the board as a whole, but I can play blindfold when I divide the board in five  parts (four drawing a cross and the fifth the center to connect and relate the other four parts). Nobody told me how to do it, I just invented that method and maybe it already exists anyways. Never set a foot on a chess club in my whole life. 

But when playing blindfolded I can't think with a depth more than two plies ahead. 

Curiously, if I have an empty board in front of me, I can see everything easily, but only 5 plies depth more or less. 

If the pieces are on the board, I can see up to 40 plies depth (from the opening all the way to the endgame). But usually when playing I stop visualizing at depth 15 because I see already that the line is beneficial enough or not. I calculate deeper only as a training. 

But when playing for fun here at chess.com, I never think more than 2 plies depth, sometimes 1 ply, because I play for entertainment, releasing stress, etc., not as a training. Training i do it OTB or vs Chessmaster.

Anyways, for becoming a good chess player all of this is irrelevant.  Any beginner with proper training can visualize all moves ahead and lose easily.  However, what makes a player being good is the correct evaluation of the position, designing a good plan or strategy, etc. That way only visualizing 5 plies ahead is enough to crush someone visualizing 40 moves ahead or playing blindfolded. 

I probably played less than 10 games before age 18. I became interested at age 18 though and started playing a lot.

Calculate 12 ply no problem? Sometimes I don't do that when I can see the board. It depends on the position. I mean, sure I could visualize random moves, but doing a decent calculation that deep blindfold I would not say I could do it "without problems"

I see a 2d board, but I only see it parts of it at a time. Like if I'm focusing on a bishop on g2, I "see" it attacking d5, c6, b7 and during this time I pretty much don't see anything else.

Or I might see a 4x4 area, or only the pawn structure, etc. I never see everything at once... maybe I should practice that if I want to be good at it heh.

Yeah, that's another point: to visualize weak moves is easy and very deep. Visualize good strong moves is another story. 

That's pretty impressive to get to where you've gotten to. 18 isn't old by any means, but it's not a kid either. What was your imrprovement trajectory like (approximately)? Curious to see if it fits in with my own theories.

I practically didn't play chess as a child. What helps me is a physical empty board. If I see an empty board, I can imagine peaces and their moves, but playing totally blindfold is a madness. I can remember one game, how peaces were moving and ideas I had around that, but if I see a random mid-game position for 5 secs, I even can't reproduce it later with great accuracy.

Umm... my first OTB tournament was age 21, so I'd been playing about 3 years. I was 1300 strength. My main activities were playing blitz but my dad had 3 chess books that I'd read parts of. Bobby Fischer Teaches Chess, an endgame book, and Chernev's logical chess... at some point I also purchased a tactics book so I knew about forks and pins and stuff as well... but as you might imagine, 1300 in 3 years is pretty slow. I mostly played blitz

After that my improvement stayed slow. Never more than 100 points in a year.

So

1300-1500 in 2 years
Stuck at 1500 for 2 or 3 years

1600 to 1700 in 1 year
stuck at 1700 for about 2 years

1800 to 1900 in 1 year
stuck at 1900 for about 3 years

And right now I'm 2000

---

I didn't play in tournaments often, and I've been pretty lazy, mostly playing blitz.

But I've also looked at some famous historical games. I periodically followed top tournaments and played over almost all the games for a tournament. I played over a few world championship matches like Botvinnik Tal 1960. At one point I was studying endgame 4 hours a day. At one point I was doing tactics 3 hours a day.

So it's feast and famine. I study hard, or I'm very lazy.

Interesting. Endgame study pays off

How would you recommend studying knight vs bishop endgames? Any books or something?

lol I don't know, ask Llama. I would say look at some examples of good knight vs bad bishop, and then some vice-versa (famous Fischer-Taimanov ending for example)

But seriously though, it's so been many years since I did any chess study I'm not best placed to answer.

Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual is my go to book, but it mostly has technical positions with reduced material... not that this is easy or unimportant! But maybe you're thinking more of bishop vs knight with pawns on both sides... more of a more practical thing.

If you don't have chessbase, then I'd say google. You'll discover things like Fischer was known for his endgames, in particular some nice endgames with a bishop vs a knight.

Like Fischer Taimanov 1971 and Fischer Tal 1962.

Find analysis of games like these and study them. Whenever you find a position that's interesting to you, save it. Make some notes on it, and put it in a folder. Over time it piles up into a lot of good material. Pull positions out of your folder from time to time and study them again.

I'm a little embarrassed to give such quality advice and only be 2000. Don't look at my rating and judge this advice lol. This is advice from players better than me

But yeah, try to find games with B vs N where good players have made comments. Review all the comments and then form some summary ideas of your own and write it down and save it. When you get better pull these games out again, you'll have new insights and you'll learn new things from greats like Fischer.

Oh, and when I say strong players I don't mean youtubers like Mato and Agadmator lol

They may be very nice people, and love chess, and a lot of players are entertained by them... but if you want to study it needs to be more serious. A titled player at the very least, ideally a GM.

I know Marin has a section in his book "Learn From the Legends" on Fischer's endgame with a bishop... probably not the first thing you should do to learn endgame, heh, but just as a counter example to trying to learn from some untitled players on youtube.

I think I got it, thanks :-)

It's very rare to find someone more than 2100 rating unable to play blindfolded. I hope that answers your question.

@sergeybiryukov In Dvoretsky's endgame manual you can find anything about the endgame. I'm sure there you will find what you are looking for. It's full of exercices, examples, theory, etc. But you could also find it in other endgame books.