CM Azel Chua Shares a Framework for Improving Chess Calculation ("The Burger Method")

Подписаться 14 тыс.

Просмотров 2,4 тыс.

50% 1

Azel Chua is a 21-year-old Singapore-based self-taught Candidate Master who has built his own chess skills from the ground up. As Azel explains, he began working on his visualization skills as he sought a way to study chess during high school classes that did not especially interest him.. From there, Azel has developed a unique framework for calculating in chess that he calls “The Burger Technique,” as covered in his popular Chessable courses on Calculation. In our interview, we discuss this technique, as well as hearing Azel’s thoughts and experiences with utilizing resources such as RU-vid, and Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual. Azel also shares some helpful tips on ways to improve one’s chess intuition, and he delves into his background and the chess scene in Singapore. As always, timestamps of topics discussed can be found below.
Thanks to our sponsor, Chessable.com! If you sign up for Chessable Pro in order to unlock additional features, be sure to use the following link:
www.chessable....
03:00- What did Azel learn from studying the classic book Dvoretsky’s Endgame Manual during high school classes?
Mentioned: Calculation Masterclass with Chessgoals
• Calculation masterclas...
7:00- What was Azel’s approach to chess improvement?
10:00- Why does Azel think that the common tactic-solving advice of looking for “checks, captures and threats” might be bad advice?
12:15- What is”the Burger technique?”
17:30- Where did he come up with the name for “the Burger technique?”
21:00- What was Azel’s mix of studying vs. competing as a tournament player?
22:00- How does Azel describe the chess culture of Singapore?
25:00- What were the biggest contributors to Azel’s improvement?
27:30- What can we do to improve our chess intuition?
32:00- What was Azel’s approach to openings?
36:00- Does Azel follow professional chess? Or read about chess history?
37:00- How does Azel find teaching material?
39:00- What is reciprocal thinking?
Mentioned: IM John Bartholomew‘s Video: The Power of Reciprocal Thinking
45:00- Thanks to Azel Chua for joining me! You can check out his Chessable courses here:
www.chessable....
If you would like to help support Perpetual Chess via Patreon, you can do so here:
/ perpetualchess

Опубликовано:

22 авг 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 32

@mattjensen3499 3 месяца назад

Great episode Ben and Azel!

@perpetualchesspodcast9143 3 месяца назад

Thanks Matt!

@mikhails5483 3 месяца назад

I think a better analogy is-- when you start driving, you're taught to continuously scan the road for everything, but the better you are at driving the less you actually do this and just recognize when there are signs, obstructions, potholes, etc., as they appear.

@moniqueheubel8970 3 месяца назад

So true!

@khodion 3 месяца назад

I don't think CM Azel's method is any different from what has been existing, including CCT (V). Top Bun: Evaluate the position Meat: Pattern Recognition Bottom Bun: Candidate moves. He just made it make sense to him.

@seop1721 3 месяца назад

Strikes me that his argument is sound. Chess Steps has a search strategy and aims for automatisation, just like the burger technique. One could argue that CCTV also can do the same, but the method requires no analysis of context. The contextual themes or motifs/elements is more useful than mere checks, etc, in the long-run.

@perpetualchesspodcast9143 3 месяца назад

Well-said! I think a hybrid of the two might be my preferred approach, I don't think it needs to be one size fits all though, people should do what works for them.

@seop1721 3 месяца назад

@@perpetualchesspodcast9143 I agree. I think you are right that CCTV is a useful blunder check. It maybe automatises a safety orientation, and then there is room for the other elements. What interests me is the list of elements itself. L. Polgar’s ‘Middlegame’ book has such a list, which might itself be useful as the basis for the kind of approach your guest discussed. I came across CCTV in a Judit Polgar book, just a sample on Amazon, and instantly it impressed me as a useful mnemonic and ‘security’ metaphor. V was ‘variations’. :-)

@Opferschach 3 месяца назад

In 1925 Lasker published the German edition of his chess manual. In 1932 he himself translated it into English, and I would like to quote from this translation: "In every situation one easily discovers moves of violent, forceful and immediate effect. Their purpose is to produce a change in valuation, so as to humiliate that which is strong and to put into the foreground that which had been but slightly esteemed. Such moves are a Checkmate, the capture of a piece, the promotion of a Pawn, simultaneous attacks, Checks to King or Queen - in short, all moves which contain a menace sudden and brutal." So when we look for the origin of the "checks, captures, and threats" mantra, we can go to at least as early as 1925. However it appears that Lasker didn't mean to come up with anything new in this book. He just gave his best understanding of Steinitz's teachings.

@perpetualchesspodcast9143 3 месяца назад

Thanks for the insight! The concepts were certainly around, was just curious of the first to distill it to its core essence, of "look for checks, capture and threats." I loved Lasker's Manual as one of my first chess books though!

@Opferschach 3 месяца назад

@@perpetualchesspodcast9143 Does the exact wording as "checks, captures, and threats" matter though? I remember watching Larry Christiansen's videos that he made for ICC between 2007 and 2016, and in many of them he repeated the phrase "Always look for violent forcing moves first", and often, although not always, he proceeded to list violent forcing moves. Unsurprisingly, those were checks, captures, moves with direct threats, and sometimes also pawn promotions and pawn breaks. It was not the exact same wording, but it was exactly the same idea. At about the same time Dan Heisman had his own show on ICC, and he suggested to look for "checks, captures, and threats." Let's assume for the sake of the argument that Dan Heisman was the first to put it like that. Should he have the honour of coming up with the idea? No. Even if this exact wording originated from him, we know that the advice itself did not, so he doesn't deserve the honour. As far as I am concerned, this honour probably should belong to Steinitz, as it appears that it was him to come up with the idea that at the begining of the game you accumulate small advantages, and once there are enough of them, you start looking for violent forcing moves. Although I haven't read "The Ink War" yet, it is possible that it was someone even before Steinitz. P.S. I am fluent in German and Russian. I did some googling, and for both languages I found just 10 (!) mentions of the "checks, captures, [and] threats" mantra. Those were online forum posts, apparently written by people who consume chess content in English, and two chess-com articles that were translated from English. That tells us two things: 1. This exact mantra originated in the English-speaking realm. 2. It is not prominent outside of it, even though in German and Russian chess education they also like to give broadly speaking the same advice. Before writing this I looked at a Russian-language tactics course made by GM Alexey Goganov to confirm whether it is true, and yes, it is.

@perpetualchesspodcast9143 3 месяца назад

Thanks for your insights! Its interesting that these guidelines have been around for so long, even if they were worded slightly differently, but the popularity of "checks, capture & threats" in particular has really exploded in the internet age. I guess it just speaks to how quickly ideas spread now compared to the old days.

@stonedsoul3469 3 месяца назад

Checks, Captures, and Threats has an unappealing built-in redundancy. When you analyze captures, you are analyzing threats of captures. "Threats" should therefore be replaced by something more profound.

@seop1721 3 месяца назад

In Chess Steps, threats are defined as having two moves. So you can consider what you or an opponent might do ‘if’ you could move twice in a row. That is a ‘threat’ as defined in Steps, which makes it distinct from captures. And not all threats are necessarily captures. It can be a threat to invade on the 7th, etc.

@khodion 3 месяца назад

Hi Ben, the concept of checks captures and threats goes way back to the days of C. Purdy (probably beyond that) where he says to look at "... every move that smites."

@perpetualchesspodcast9143 3 месяца назад

Ha, I do remember the smites quote. Does he use the term checks captures and threats though?

@davidblue819 3 месяца назад

@@perpetualchesspodcast9143 No he did not. He advised people to learn by making captures on an open board, and then his focus was on simple tactics like "forks, pins, nets, and ties." He also wrote a lot about the concept of the threat, the definition of "threat," and ideas like the piece that has just made a capture having a threat to run away, a threat that you usually have to respond to. But he did not use "checks, captures, and threats" as a mantra.

@lollycopter 3 месяца назад

Excellent interview! Not enough emphasis is placed on playing plenty of games with an increment and (not too deeply) analysing them. The advice almost sounds too simple and boring to be true, but time and time again I've noticed anxious casual improvers try way too hard with pure study only to burn themselves out as soon as they face rated timed game situations against human opponents. Obviously, study can work, but for me at least, actual game time needs to be the first priority.

@kewnst 2 месяца назад

the way its decribed here the burger method seems more natural to use than cct. because. cct just dumps you in a position and says HERE FIGUE IT out. in chess games. we have a bunch of moves ot get to this position. and we already know the material. whats hanging or open ot attack. whats well defended. where the kings are. so the burger method is already 2 steps complete. it sghould be much easier to recognize the move in game

@knightdreamer81 3 месяца назад

I think CCT is very useful when doing your blunder checks after deciding on your move.

@tgnome57 3 месяца назад

Ben, I think the first appearance of the CCT idea is probably from Cecil Purdy's book 'Search for Chess Perfection." He calls them "Smiting" moves. I'm not sure when/where it got boiled down to the CCT idea, but conceptually I think he's talking about the same thing.

@perpetualchesspodcast9143 3 месяца назад

Conceptually, sure. And Purdy is a legendary author, but "smites" (unlike CCT) is not really actionable IMO, unless its some sort of Australian/American language barrier. :)

@ChessLifeInsurance 3 месяца назад

This is a great interview! Big shout to CM Shares for drawing attention to this issue!! Best takeaway for just about any PCP show is right here!!! Because "All checks, captures, and THREATS"?! is the suspect mantra we always hear. This is what Levy Rozman tells 1100s to look out for... To the average tournament player (~1100 Elo), a "threat" is too vague:( It is better to tell beginner and intermediate players to look out for ALL CHECK(MATE)S, CAPTURES, AND HANGING.

@Summalogicae 3 месяца назад

A suspect mantra?!? Who are you kidding? Telling players to look for Checks, Captures, and “hanging”? That’s just as vague; similarly for all captures. It’s only vague when the coach doesn’t explain anything else about that concept. Tell any new player to look for threats without telling them what threats are, sure, that’s just bad coaching; likewise for not explaining “hanging.” But what coach does that? I teach a couple hundred u1100 players each week, and to say that to look for CCT is vague is just absurd and empirically false. At 1100 you need to spend the time and energy to get this notion into the head; at 2000 you do not need to spend time and energy on this notion bc it’s now an effortless habit. No one gets to a “no conscious effort” until the explicit habit is done consciously over and over. And speaking of vague, Chua goes on to say “look for targets.” That’s far more vague than threats.

@ChessLifeInsurance 3 месяца назад

Hanging specifically means undefended pieces and pawns. If you always keep track of what is undefended you can find forks and other tricks. Most tactics involve a double attack in one form or another and chess is 99% tactics... so pick up those hanging pieces!@@Summalogicae

@ronfuse6993 3 месяца назад

Smash the like button

@radicoolcalifornian2551 3 месяца назад

How can he be passionate about chess when he cynically pursued a title for the mere fact that it makes it easier to make a career as a coach. Sure, he might like teaching as a career but he doesn't seem as passionate as even the average viewer in my opinion.

@simonhinkel4086 3 месяца назад

Imagine having No passion and still making it to 2200. I guess what he's doing works pretty Well 😁

@seop1721 3 месяца назад

Pays the bills. Pragmatism. And he said chess was fun. He made a very human assessment (evaluation of a life position...) that most people would approve of. Life imitates chess, too.

@alanmay6172 3 месяца назад

Whatever reason was he made it

@RobFraser 2 месяца назад

Some people are more passionate about helping others succeed, and that’s why coaches don’t have to be as good as their athletes.

@Zerotonin666 25 дней назад

Guess who's a random chump on the integer hanging around in the comments of a video and who's being actively interviewed by one of the biggest chess podcast. So I guess he's passionate enough