Seeing or counting?

They/we talk about to count moves beforhand, but could it more be seeing? To see the whole board and pieces there are and their possibilities. To percieve? I just wonder that, because my friend, who has studied graphichs in university is much better in chess than me and I have been studied mathematics.

Eliminating observational errors is one of the biggest (if not the biggest) early steps in improvement.

This includes things like not realizing a square is attacked, or e.g. not realizing they have 3 attackers and you only have 2 defenders.

Even the simple counting is not allways enough about who conquest the square (for me). I just make this kind of error where I though that because I make the first move my piece would leave on the board. There are two Rook and Queen in both side. Lets battle of the square h8:

Yeah, that's why I never liked counting. I still don't use it. Also because the pieces aren't always the same value. Instead of counting I visualize the captures.

In fast games, as a shortcut, sometimes I visualize only the first capture, and count afterwards. So to use your example I'd visualize Qh8 then count 3 vs 2.

One nice shortcut in thinking is noticing that to win material in a series of exchanges (if the pieces being exchanged are equal) then you have to make the first and the last capture. If one player is the first, and the other is the last, then it was an equal exchange.

In the example below, the pieces being exchanged are equal, and white makes the first capture, so white can be sure he will not lose material. Maybe another way of thinking of it is black is always trying to catch up. White is up a pawn, so black recaptures. White is up a knight, so black recaptures, etc.

ok, "arvioida" in finnish:

It is also seeing possible moves. I don't even see every possible move. I concentrate something and something better or opponents best move I dont regognzie beforehand at all. Chess is difficult!