I use a board (unless I'm flicking through the book purely for visualisation practice). Sometimes I will visualise variations if possible, just for convenience, but if the variation is too long to visualise comfortably then I will play it out on the board.
Some people are more gifted in visualisation than others, but I think that anyone can improve their visualisation with practice. Doing tactical puzzles will help here (for example, on Chess Tempo).
I at first couldn't do it. I play the moves on the board, but then the variations, I nearly always see them in my head first. At first it was ineffective, I was seeing something that isn't quite what was going on. I then play the moves on the board and go like "Ah! that's what I missed!". Now I can comfortably visualize at least 6, 7, maybe 8 moves. Sometimes I don't understand it, then i play it on the board, but that's something i wouldn't understand even if i was seeing it on the board. But in those cases it's much easier to think while looking the pieces on the board then in your mind.
You can develop it, as i did, but i was never mentally deficient, i don't know about the "mentally deficient" people, but i got there with practice.
that chess tempo is THE THING!! HOW did i not know about that before? Thanks!! REally good for your iq. Awsome! I love it!
Considering that visualization is not computation (but helps a lot !), this ability comes with practice. Long lines in middlegame are still a pain for me but 3 our 4 moves or even 10 engame's moves is ok.
I have a book by Koblentz and Kotov where they give two exercices to improve visualization:
Can you play this miniatures without a board ?
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 d6 4.Nc3 Bg4 5.Nxe5?! Bxd1? 6.Bxf7+ Ke7 7.Nd5#
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Ng4?! 5.h3 h5 6.hxg4? hxg4 7.Ne1 Qh4! 8.f4 g3 9.Qh5 Rxh5 10.Nf3 Qh1#
Another point is the quality of books : some writers/editors are so unreadable for beginners. Take the Nimzovitch "System Praxis" in French Pocket Version, there is a lot game without any diagram ! for me it's juste unreadable.
Some books are just lovely to read because there is a lot of diagrams and diagrams are well placed, at critical stage. Then it's easy to visualize the three short variations because you have a visual ground to lay off.
I have a book by Koblentz and Kotov where they give two exercices to improve visualization:
Can you play this miniatures without a board ?
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 d6 4.Nc3 Bg4 5.Nxe5?! Bxd1? 6.Bxf7+ Ke7 7.Nd5#
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 Nf6 4.O-O Ng4?! 5.h3 h5 6.hxg4? hxg4 7.Ne1 Qh4! 8.f4 g3 9.Qh5 Rxh5 10.Nf3 Qh1#
Another point is the quality of books : some writers/editors are so unreadable for beginners. Take the Nimzovitch "System Praxis" in French Pocket Version, there is a lot game without any diagram ! for me it's juste unreadable.
Some books are just lovely to read because there is a lot of diagrams and diagrams are well placed, at critical stage. Then it's easy to visualize the three short variations because you have a visual ground to lay off.
The trouble with those 2 examples is that they're familiar to me, so I'm not sure if I'm visualising or just remembering :/
I also agree that I like books with plenty of diagrams. Often I just casually open a chess book to read it for some enjoyment, and diagrams are a help for this. I don't necessarily want to have to be constantly visualising.
Very good post. I would also like to know the answer.