05 July 2021

Developing board sight


There are various definitions of "board sight" or "board vision" in chess, but fundamentally it means the ability to (mentally) see all of the various possibilities for moves by your pieces (and those of your opponent). While it is closely related to your level of tactical skill, it is not quite the same thing. In fact, I would say that, once you have been exposed to the full range of tactical ideas and patterns, whether through books like Understanding Chess Tactics or sites like Predator at the Chessboard, more often it is a failure of board sight in a particular position that will trip you up and cause you to miss a tactic. There are examples of this at all levels, including Kramnik's infamous missed mate-in-one.

One of the benefits of analyzing your own games is to see how particular issues repeatedly appear in them, which allows you to better correct them in future games. When looking at missed tactics, it is therefore very important to understand why you missed them - both for yourself or your opponent. In the latter case, I have long had a bias toward focusing on my own plans over the chessboard and not looking hard enough at the possibilities for my opponent; I have been working on this using a better thought process with tactics training. This expansion of mental focus, while helpful in general, will not necessarily eliminate board sight problems - although it should at least increase my chances to spot additional threats.

Here are some specific examples of "hard-to-see" tactical moves that can fool our board sight:

  • Backwards piece moves, especially by bishops and queens. It is more natural to focus on forward / attacking moves by long-range pieces, and miss the ability to retreat, even short distances. 
  • Horizontal piece moves, especially by rooks and queens. Again, there is a natural bias towards forward movement (toward the opponent), which may lead us to miss pins and attacks along the chessboard ranks.
  • "Impossible" moves by a piece onto a protected square. This can be a "naked sacrifice" where the moving piece looks like it will simply be captured, or a breakthrough sacrifice where for example a protected pawn is taken by a piece. In both cases, doing the usual math about how many times a square/piece is protected does not work, due to other tactics being present on the board.
The diagram at the top is a convenient illustration of all three of the above phenomena. Black has just snatched a pawn on c2 with his bishop, rarely a good idea in these kinds of positions. The key to the resulting tactic is a backwards queen move (Qf3-e2) which blocks in White's bishop. Moving a major piece a second time in the opening, while preventing the development of a minor piece, is not a normal occurrence, which may have helped bias Black when missing the move. The result is a double attack, horizontally against the Black Bc2 and vertically against the e7 pawn, which as a result is pinned. Afterwards Nc4-d6 is possible, threatening mate. So Black must guard against the mate threat and lose the bishop.

The obvious question, then, is how can we improve our board sight. Much of the general advice in that regard is along the lines of "practice more tactics" and "play a lot of games". It's hard to argue with these ideas, since greater experience normally translates in practical terms into better play - at least for a while. However, I would offer up the following practices as addressing more directly the issues involved with board sight failures, when you are actually playing a game:
  • CCT (checks, captures and threats). Incorporating a CCT scan into your thinking process will make you consider everything that is a forcing move on the board.
  • Status examination, as outlined in Understanding Chess Tactics. Essentially this means you will have an explicit awareness of what each piece can do and understand which are weak pieces and squares on the board.
  • Thinking on your opponent's time. This is more of an overall mental strategy, but the efficiency gains from doing the above two practices while your opponent is thinking, rather than doing things like calculating variations, will be significant.


  1. Good points - as always!

    In some ways, the diagram above reminds me of the game Larry Christiansen vs Anatoly Karpov, Wijk aan zee 1993.

    [FEN: r2qk2r/p2p1ppp/1pbbp3/7n/2P1P3/P1N1B3/1PQ2PPP/R3KB1R w KQkq - 4 12]

    Apparently, World Champion Karpov failed to recognize that White could play his Queen BACKWARDS with 12. Qd1. GMs are not supposed to un-develop pieces in the opening, so I guess it was a case of mental "blindness"!

    I still have to explicitly force myself to look at the potentiality of each piece (the Weteschnik status examination) while analyzing a position. One of my favorite thinking "tricks" is to force myself to look at the position of the Kings FIRST when doing the status examination. My inner alar system goes off whenever I seem a piece (especially a KING) that is immobile. In the given diagram, the Black King is totally immobilized. That triggers a look for ANY piece that can "attack" that King. "Always check - it might be MATE!" This is a combination of using Lasker's motifs (NOT tactical device/themes) - the encircling motif, the geometrical motif, and especially the attacking motif. Since the Black King is immobile, it's "easy" (maybe only for some people!) to "see" that WNc4 can check that King on d6. Having seen this relationship of attacking contacts (Averbakh), it is logical to start looking for any other piece that can be brought to bear directly against the Black King, with a concurrent threat if possible to create a double attak.

    If the BPe7 could be pinned (geometrical motif), then the Knight check would change to MATE. Coincidentally (doesn't it seem coincidental a lot of times?!?), White can "attack" the BBc2 AND simultaneously pin the BPe7. As a consequence of this "logical" sequence, Black loses a piece.

    Rhetorical question: Why does it seem so logical and easy when I am NOT at the board playing a game?!?

    My simple answer: I don't SEE because I don't LOOK at every piece before making each move.

    1. Good points, especially with regards to spotting which pieces currently lack squares. This is very helpful in seeing real-world tactics as well as in solving puzzles. When it applies to the King, of course it can mean mate, and often cutting off a King's path of retreat is the most devastating move possible.


Your comments and ideas on chess training and this site are welcomed.

Please note that moderation is turned on as an anti-spam measure; your comment will be published as soon as possible, if it is not spam.