He discriminates between three types of vision.
- Board vision
- Tactical vision
This encompasses the roles and tasks of the pieces, and the squares they are covering. For simplicity I will call the latter the "aura" of the pieces. Investigating this at CT lead to the conclusion that I'm explicit weak at visualizing the aura of the pieces and I tend to overlook overworked pieces.
My tactical vision is well developed after a zillion+1 exercises. The problem is that somehow the cues that should trigger the recognition do not fire immediately, but only after some period of trial and error. When triggered, the "aha" feeling is immanent. The habit of uncontrolled trial and error should be erased.
Heisman uses this term for seeing how the position looks like in the future, when pieces have moved. The main problem here is that information of the pieces on the board contradicts with the information of their future position, causing interference. Without a good board vision, visualization of future positions is impossible.
Embedded chess knowledge.
What is missing here is the embedding of chess knowledge. When you see a pinned piece, you should start looking for how to attack the pinned piece. If not there, you should look if you can target the defenders of the pinned piece in stead. In the mean time you have to look out for the standard methods of unpinning. Most of this tactical knowledge is quite simple and well known. Yet it takes ages before it rises up in the thinking mind. Somehow these reactions must become automatic. It's no rocket science, there is no need to invent the same wheel over and over again.
The examples that Dan Heisman gave in his video were isolated exercises, specific designed for targeting isolated skills, part of the different types of vision. I don't think that is a very good idea, although it helps to understand what he is talking about. You become good in what you train, no doubt about that. But there is a whole bunch of skills that you should learn this way. We might underestimate the magic of the unconscious. When it can add the sound of the motor , the speed of the car and the distance to the next bend in the road to the art of shifting gears, without our thinking telling it how to do it, it might need more space to organize itself. I trained Troyis as an isolated exercise, and now I can move the knights around in my head like a grandmaster. But if you look at the contribution of this isolated skill to the ability of winning an OTB game or solving a tactical puzzle, its effect is marginal.
Renko's ICT 2.
I have solved about 200 puzzles of the levels "intermediate" and "advanced". I'm sure they are good to train your board vision. But in stead of doing all 1400 or so problems (maybe later), I changed to the "master level" exercises. That is way out of my comfort zone, which is good for my chess karma, I have been told, but it gives a good idea how the different types of vision work together.
The following diagram is a beautiful example. Try to visualize the whole tree of analysis. It is a forced line, meaning that each move of yours is a check. You will find out that that knowledge isn't of much help. The end result is mate in all lines.
|White to move|
r1bq3r/pppp3p/6kn/3NQ1b1/4PR2/8/PPP3PP/5RK1 w - - 0 1