Those That Can See 6+ Moves Ahead, What do You Actually See?

Yes, again, the entire position. Otherwise the calculations, long or short, have no value. If you're missing parts of the board in your mind, you're almost certainly missing things in your calculations.

Imagine if you were a quarterback, and you said, "I can throw long and accurately. But... I can only see 2 of my receivers and can't see where the defensive backs are." You'd be laughed off the field.

I've heard lots of people say that your visualization abilities get better 'naturally' as you get better.  Many say once you get to 1800 or 2000 or whatever random rating you want, you can play blindfold.  Maybe not play well, but you can do it.  I have not found this to be the case.

If I stare at the board, I can mentally move the pieces several moves, especially if it is forced.  If you don't give me a board, I've got almost nothing.  Interestingly, you can give me an empty board and I calculate much better.

I spent several weeks working with the ChessEye visualization software, and though I can name all the colours of every square, it had only a small effect on my visualization.  All said, though, I may be the worst tactical player rated over 2000 on chess.com, so I may not be the best example of a 'good player'.

you are a good guy to give such a thorough answer.  

thanks for the instructive analogy.

in real tournament games if i think hard enough i can maybe see 7 moves ahead, but it takes a lot of time for me to calculate 7 moves ahead, since i forget the material count

7 moves? Seriously? There would have to be a lot of moves that could be cast aside to come anywhere near keeping track of that many. It would have to be like the Daily Puzzle. Can you do those in your head without moving any material?

uhhhh yeah.....

I use three different types of looking ahead.

In the endgame, every piece and pawn is important, therefore I have to see the entire board.

In a standard attack, I remember where every piece is, but only the pawns in the area I'm attacking.

In opposite sides attacking, I use a standard attack method while counting the moves.  Then I calculate the other attack and compare number of moves.

When not attacking, I just play intuitive moves.  I don't actively look for tactics, but I rarely miss any.  (I recently reviewed some of my games from the 80s, and found two games in which I missed a mate-in-one.)

I see stars.

I believe your question is inaccurate and that's due to lack of understanding what's important. Many amatuers can see just as far ahead as the world's best. The difference is in WHAT they are looking at. Before you begin calculating you must have a firm grasp on the position in front of you. Accurate evaluation will guide your strategy. One you have a strategy you will think up the short-term goals necessary to accomplish your "master plan", your strategy. This is when you begin calculating. You need to calculate only to come to a conclusion, not just for the sake of calculating. But I will tell you, in 99% of all cases you need only to calculate 8-10 at most. This is according to Garry Kasparov by the way. To improve your visualisation skills vigilantly practice blindfold chess and study the endgame.

This is a great topic.  I have a related issue.  And I was wondering whether anyone else has experienced it.

What happens, and it's particularly acute during endgames (when visualization should be theoretically easier since there's less pieces on the board), is that when I calculate/visualize a line, I'll forget whose move it is!  And I'll go, "I'll go there, he goes there, I'll go there, he goes there; okay, let's evaluate this position.... 30 seconds elapse, okay, where was I?  Whose move is it now?"  

And then I'll spend some time re-calculating and re-visualizing because I forgot whose turn it was!  Because I was positionally evaluating a line during the calculation of a line!  Oh my gosh.  This drives me crazy.  Waste time because I'm afraid I made a stupid calculation error.  So I double and triple check.

Anyone else forget whose move it was during a calculation?  And if so, what suggestions are there to avoid this?  Kotov said to calculate only once.  I know if I was to follow his counsel, I would blunder more than I already do.

I can see plenty of moves ahead, but not the right ones...lol. You really only need to see one move ahead if it is right!

Move Candidates and Calculation.

When do I not need to calculate?

• When there is nothing tactical going on.

• The key to calculation, is to look for your opponents moves too.

At the start of a plan:

1. Select Candidate Moves.

2. What can my opponent do?

3. Play straight forward moves.

4. Play moves that concretely follow your plan. Your plan must involve moves that are Forcing Moves.

5. DO NOT move your pieces back. You miss out on attacking, and pressuring your opponent.

3 Types of Moves:

1. Reinforcing Moves: Moves that help your plan.

2. Forcing Moves: Attacking moves.

3. Prophylactic Moves: Quiet, slow moves that stabilize your position.

How do you decide on which move to play:

• You base your move on the activity of your opponents position.

• Does your opponent have any immediate threats?

• The more active your opponents position, the quicker you need to deal with any threats.

• If your opponents position is quiet, no tactical threats, you can take your time.

When does calculation take place?

• In general 90% of the time, calculation takes place at the end of a successful plan.

Look for Ideas, not Moves.

• What do you want to do?

• Why will it work, or not work?

How do you open the position?

• By trading pawns, to open lines for your pieces.

When do you know when to stop calculating?

• There are no more followup moves that complicate the position.

• Only one player has attacks, or threats that can be made.

• When you simply cant calculate any deeper.

When you cant visualize any deeper.

• Go back to the very beginning of the line, and go very slowly through the moves.

• Replaying the moves will help you clarify the situation.

• Clarifying the lines you visualize becomes easy for one reason; You stick with 1 line of calculation. DO NOT branch off in your visualization.

An important question to ask yourself:

• What are the important qualities, and disadvantages in my position, and my opponents position?

Elements of a position, you need to look for:

• Weaknesses: Anything that can be attacked.

1. Most Important - Permanent weaknesses are weak pawns, weak squares, weak king position, etc.

2. Less Important - Temporary weaknesses are weaknesses that can be protected, improved upon, etc.

• Piece Activity: Compare your pieces, to your opponents counter part. What are the prospects of each piece?

1. Queen vs. Queen. +1 to the more active piece.

2. Rook vs. Rook. +1 to the more active piece.

3. Bishop vs. Bishop. +1 to the more active piece.

4. Knight vs. Knight. +1 to the more active piece.

• Character of the Position:

1. Dynamic Position: A sharp/tactical position. A position that most likely can change.

   1. Short term advantages.

2. Static Position: A fixed position. A position that cannot change in the next 3-5 moves.

   1. Long term advantages.

IMBacon, that post was sizzling!!!  Wow.  Saving that for my permanent files.  Thank you sir!

yes. you are Not alone.

I think Kotov's rule here is bad.  we , err , I am way too inaccurate to calculate something important only once.  calculate it; then recalculate, THEN ask yourself, what tactic does he have?  can he play a CHECK during my variation?  what about a checkmate threat??

Kotov (as I recall) was absolutely dogmatic about then kinds of checks/checkmates/threats analysis.

. so not to naysay a great chessplayer (but) I don't think the "calculate only once" advice is good for a Patzer during OTB chess.

Yasser Seirawan said he once calculated a pawn ending ~50 moves deep. He pointed out that in most positions, if you can see 3-4 moves deep clearly, that's all you need. 

I've analysed with GMs. What really stands out to me is that they don't need to analyse most positions deeply. They can accurately evaluate most positions almost instantly. Sure, they are also capable of calculating. They're GMs after all. 

But this notion that GMs see so much more deeply than everyone else is a bit of hyperbole. What really separates GMs from mortals is that they can evaluate the positions they do see so much better than 2300 rated players. 

I once saw a unicorn dancing across a sun flare in a parallel universe where a species of greenish slug weighing around 180lb ruled this planet called Skrooki-5.

Maybe it wasn't that parallel, it was probably at more of an obtuse angle.

later I thought the whole thing might have been influenced by scenes from Star Wars movies stuck in my subconscious.

So now I am not sure.

IMBacon is pretty accurate.  Personally, I used to limit my analyses to games of 2600+ GMs.   Nowdays 2700+ GMs.  (better positional judgement than lower rated GMs)

Try not to tire yourself out on every move; limit your intense analyses to critical points.  (takes  practice) Then when the opportunity arises your mind will be fresh enough to spot it.

Aaahhhh, that's a good tip!  I would just want to make sure that the visualised positions allow me to note if there are any dangerous zwishenzugs lurking.   

This is a chess forum. Narcotics Anonymous is next door. No worries, it happens. Please don't slam the door on your way out, and best of luck with your recovery.