Oct 12, 2026 · 1 hr 42 min · 12 segments
Azel's Chessable Courses: https://www.chessable.com/author/AzelChua/ Azel's Course on Calculation: https://www.chessable.com/calculation-a-complete-guide-for-tournament-players/course/53691/…
And on calculation, I'm actually very critical of calculation techniques compared to any other piece of advice in chess.
Because when it comes to calculation, when it comes to tactics, people don't always know when there's a tactic looming.
So whatever technique you use, it should be easy to use throughout the game, almost effortless.
The training can be effortful, but the execution when you're in the game should feel effortless.
And
sufficiently robust to handle that.
And then maybe let's start talking about the technique, right? Because there are several points.
For example, I don't think you preach this brute force blind checks captures threat algorithm, right? Which to my mind is complete like trial and error and like blind process, basically.
And in fact, this would be a good chance to talk about how I am critical of calculation techniques.
So showing examples of how checks captures and threats work isn't sufficient because if you want something that's truly robust you have to try to disprove it try to find instances where it fails so when someone claims they're using a specific technique you need to ask yourself first how do they act when there are false signals and second what do they do when they make a mistake using the technique and i can use different pieces of advice here different calculation advice and then i'll break it down and show you how I would be critical of them.
So John, I'm sure you have heard of the advice, when you see a good move, look for better.
You mean like, what exactly do you mean by false signals? Like when this proves itself?
And on calculation, I'm actually very critical of calculation techniques compared to any other piece of advice in chess.
Because when it comes to calculation, when it comes to tactics, people don't always know when there's a tactic looming.
So whatever technique you use, it should be easy to use throughout the game, almost effortless.
The training can be effortful, but the execution when you're in the game should feel effortless.
And
sufficiently robust to handle that.
And then maybe let's start talking about the technique, right? Because there are several points.
For example, I don't think you preach this brute force blind checks captures threat algorithm, right? Which to my mind is complete like trial and error and like blind process, basically.
And in fact, this would be a good chance to talk about how I am critical of calculation techniques.
So showing examples of how checks captures and threats work isn't sufficient because if you want something that's truly robust you have to try to disprove it try to find instances where it fails so when someone claims they're using a specific technique you need to ask yourself first how do they act when there are false signals and second what do they do when they make a mistake using the technique and i can use different pieces of advice here different calculation advice and then i'll break it down and show you how I would be critical of them.
So John, I'm sure you have heard of the advice, when you see a good move, look for better.
You mean like, what exactly do you mean by false signals? Like when this proves itself?
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.
