What Style of chess Board do masters visualise

I have been told that to improve to master level you need to have a clear image of the board in your head; good board visualisation for anylisis etc. But honestly, it is confusing.  I do it almost subcontosly for afew moves, but then I start to think about it, and get mixed up.

Is it a 3d board? 2d?

Black and white? Shaded? There are so many styles on chess.com, and yet there should be 1 steady one to visualise.

I would like to know:

What style of board to masters visualise? Or any of you if you can view a board, for a game, or a few moves.

Personally, it is 2d, and I don't always see the pieces, just the geometry of them.

Please tell me your opinion:

What is the right kind of board to visualise, if any?

What kind do you visualise? The same for chess pieces.

And what do masters see in thier head when playing chess?

(if any are willing to comment)

Sorry to bother anyone, this question has been bugging me for a long time.

:) - logozar

I'm no master, but what I see in my head looks like the board I use to play on chess.com, which looks (mostly) like this (I use marble instead of metal):

It's kind of 2D, but with a 3D feel. I've found that this board helps me with my visualization, especially in my experiments with blindfold chess. 

That's my two cents, for whatever they're worth. :)

I never see the pieces when I visualise. I find that if all I could do was see the pieces, it wouldn't really help me. When I visualize, I sort of internalize everything, and, not to sound too philosiphical, but it's more like emotions than physical visualization.  What I mean by that is that I just sort of close my eyes and I understand the position rather than physically seeing the pieces, and it's much stronger. Often, with the board right in front of me, I will close my eyes anyways so that I can see the moves and the ideas rather than the pieces.

But that is as best as I can explain it. I am not sure what masters do.

I use a 2d board, black and yellow, basically standard chess.com board.

I've found that blitz helps not only your tactics skills, but visualisation also (because you see so many different positions in such a short period of time). It's also worth experimenting with Bullet a bit (not too much, maybe 5 games a day MAX)

I don't see anything. Just numbers and letters. I feel like a busted computer. I say busted because rarely do the numbers work out for me.

I have studied so much theory that I can't help it. I wonder if this is good for a lower rated player to be so theoretical.

Knowing enough theory to get to a playable middlegame is all that any player needs--that's what Larsen did

I don't think it matters, I just see a board when I visualize, I don't focus on what type of board.

But I'm not a master.

Me neither, but I do see a 2D board. Not that I notice it most of the time.

I honestly believe that differences in visualizing have a huge impact on playing strength. So I always find it a bit surprising how rarely the topic is being discussed.

We need more threads like this, really. Maybe we can find out what makes visualizing easier or more efficient ?

Umm I visualize the pieces on the board but moved around in my head hope this helps 

@Robert I use a 2D as well.

Thanks for your imput! I hope masters add thiers, it would certainly help!

At this point, I can mostly visualise the board due to ICS training. Hopefully I can fully in another 4 months.

Usually, I don't see the whole board but only see a certain area, and that's MUCh easier.

I change the color from time to time. I like variety.

Mostly, its the same for me now.

Per psychological studies, what is being visualized is abstract, so piece styles, shades of colors, and so on are not involved.

----------

(p. 47)

   The role of visual imagery in chess has long been of interest to psy-
chologists. It was initially investigated to explain the ability of chess
masters to play "blindfold" chess. In this situation the master plays a
game entirely in his head--he hears the moves of his opponent (in chess
(p. 48)
notation) and then replies with his own moves without ever seeing the
board.
   At first it was thought that the blindfold player had an image of the
board much like that of a photograph or picture--namely that the shape of
the pieces, the color of the squares, were all present in vivid detail. Binet
in 1893 refuted this view after interviewing many masters. He concluded
that the representation used by blindfold players was quite abstract. For
instance, a player would know that there was a knight in a certain relation
to other pieces in a particular position, but he would not have an image
of a particular carved knight. He might know the knight was white, but
he wouldn't see a certain shade of white.
   The reader can easily convince himself that one does not form a detailed
image of an entire position. Imagine an empty chessboard. "Place" a
bishop on QR3. Name the farthest square the bishop can reach on the long
diagonal. Now put a real bishop on a real board and do the same. The
time taken to answer KB8 should be markedly different in the two cases.
(Parenthetically, how many of you chose a white bishop? Or did the
bishop in the imagining case have a color? Such generative memory is quite
abstract.) Similar conclusions about the nature of the representation of
the board were reached by de Groot, and by Reuben Fine in his article on
blindfold chess [43].

Frey, Peter W, ed. 1977. Chess Skill in Man and Machine. New York: Springer-Verlag.

Thanks. That explains a lot. I often can see the board clearly, or most of it, but the pieces are what is confusing

Hello logozar:

You may consider buying the book Blindfold Chess: History, Psychology, Techniques, Champions, World Records, and Important Games by Eliot Hearst & John Knott.  Be sure to read all the reviews at Amazon because there are differing opinions on how helpful the book is as at acquiring this skill.

Also, I recommend watching this YouTube video by Dan Heisman that distinguishes between 1) board vision, 2) visualization, and 3) tactical vision.

Best,
Bob