Visualization pt. 2

(Hmm, if you haven't read part one I would go ahead and read that first.)

I think the way I personally define visualization should not be revealed with caution - as they were an integral part of breaking my plateau, and I have a personal connection with it. While personally I think this discussion offers something different terms of what has been discovered by traditional means in chess literature and science, I still firmly believe that the elements of chess improvement too very dynamic to have any static view on chess. So I went ahead and used some sources to help us without my firsthand opinion

A few things that came to mind during this search for the definition of "visualization", and this article Whos Doing the Playing? assisted in helping me put the pieces together.

As Aagaard effectively put it - solving exercises is an excellent way to improve your ability to calculate, visualize, and improve many different facets of your game. This statement is absolutely spot on - but there lies an inherent problem (which is discussed in part 1) in this thesis.

To recap, there seems to be a foundation of skills that you must be able to acquire or inherently possess (which Rune Vik Hansen supports as a product of nature than nurture) before engaging the process of "calculation", which authors such as Dvoretsky ignore altogether, and many other authors that unsuccessfully in my opinion try to tackle.

Vik-Hansen includes many hidden truths in the psychology of the mind - how it operates, and why people excel in various activities. While his discoveries aren't really a beacon to chess improvement itself, it is possible to deduce certain possibilities that can be derived to fix some of his assessments, which would otherwise be an impassable road block in ones chess improvement. If you read clearly the Introduction and the sections on conscious memory, acquisition of chess skills, it is clear that there were players such as Fischer or Carlsen where operatives relevant to "visualization" happen subconsciously.

If there is some underlying skill set is required before engaging in the training of calculation itself, I believe it would make sense to acquire these abilities which is believed to be for many, one of generic inheritance.

Vik-Hansen discusses inherent differences between say a prodigy - and a person who insists on working incredibly hard on the game, and for Nakamura fans, he is an example of a player purportedly only to spend 1-2 hours a day on chess if he FEELS like it, and still is capable of maintaining a world class rank. But quickly put our telescope on our hero, the club player who has spent many years of his life accumulating chess wisdom, and we can already see the difficulty that is exclusive to our passion to the royal game.

The question will always be for me - How to use all of this arbitrary knowledge and combine it to something that can actually assist in the search for chess excellence?
It is primarily the discovery of a concrete method which emulates the processes of subconcious of capable players such as Carlsen, Ivanchuk, and Fischer as described by Vik Hansen.

Yes, this guy calculates looking at the ceiling

Perhaps it is a fruitless search, and perhaps the method I have personally derived is not one of use- but it is a worthy question posed to the reader- What is my ethos? What are these "methods"? What is visualization? Is it genetically inherited? If it is (or even if not) is it attainable through hard work?

The answer to this question lies in how you form your own answer, because perhaps there is no one single answer. However if we look back to Richard Reti, and players such as Lajos Portisch, a significantly small number of players have been able to achieve the highest levels from hard work alone - but is it the work of a philosopher who have found an answer to this discussion? Or was it the sheer amount of work that was to be done as proposed by the Soviet Chess School, Dvoretsky, or Aagaard? Or is there some other discussion that is capable of encompassing "visualization" in itself?

While I cannot provide a sufficient answer for my credibility (perhaps it is more credible for a Grandmaster to have a confirming definition of all of this) , nor can I divulge such methods as I personally believe ones own the search for the answer of trying to define "visualization" and development of this skill is a fascination that should reap dividends.

At the end, I believe the answers posed in our lack of definition of visualization can we examine at the roots - the psychological nuances of how we interpret information - and why certain information is with-held much more quickly, whereas some other forms of patterns are not recognized with extended study.

For the "mortal" chess player, is there importance to find the answer to such a simple question? What is "visualization?, and how can it be developed?

After reading many books on these topics (Road to Chess Improvement by Yermolinsky, Rapid Chess Improvement by la Maza, Excelling at Chess by Aagaard, Excelling at Calculation, by Aagaard, Secrets of Chess Excellence - Tactical Play by Dvoretsky) I came to the conclusion that these books suggest that only by extensive study can we be able to cultivate such skills.

I felt that they all offered a piece of the answer to defining "visualization", but they all seem to suggest something that is impractical for the majority of chess players, which includes methods of just sheer amounts of work. Perhaps this is the answer, but perhaps working more intelligently to a focused effort to define "visualization" can we ultimately understand chess.

Just some food for thought, there will probably be a part 3 when I finally spill the beans of what and how I personally define "visualization", and some lost soul reading this will get something out of it. But perhaps what I am revealing is more untruth, which this untruth was misguidedly increasing my playing skill in dramatic fashion.