Scanning the thread quickly I could not see any reference to Rolf Wetzell's book Chess Master at Any Age. I think that was the book. It's close.

Probably the best section in the book was his personal approach and triumph overcoming his addiction to time trouble. It sounded like good logic to me.

Chk, I agree with you. The psychological aspect of chess is much underestimated. In general, I think that the best way is to find something that 'works for you', as any type of general advice usually misses the point. This requires you to study yourself (not just your moves) and work out what needs to change. This is what I have tried to do with my approach to time trouble. In fact, calling this thread 'Time Trouble!" was probably missing the point...'Effective Time Management, and how to achieve it!" would have been better, since I am trying to eliminate time trouble from my play, rather than learning how to cope with it.

Certainly for me, this thread has been useful as it has helped me identify what has been going wrong. I am now applying this in my own games, and the results have been encouraging, even if it is still early days.

Regarding psychology - I think it pays to spend some time thinking about this. In a game between roughly equally matched players the difference between winning/drawing/losing is often psychological. If you are able to be strong mentally, stay concentrated, show a determination to win then you are able to outperform your rating. This is the part that interests me....I am trying to find a way of maximising my chances of success, that is to say, creating the conditions (psychological and on the board) that will allow me to play to my full capacity. For me, the main problem was my awful time management (hence the thread), which I needed to address before all else. Other areas include specialising in a streamlined opening repertoire and playing positions that you understand. For this you have to take into account things like king safety, pawn structure, activity of pieces etc. For example, in 'Win with the London System' (Johnsen/Kovacevic) the introuduction makes the following point 'No matter what your playing strength is, we bet that you would increase your ELO rating by several hundred points if in each and every games you got positions where the pawn structure and piece placement were familiar and the long term plans and typical tactical motifs were seconds nature to you'. Although this is about an opening setup, the point is still valid - if you can create the conditions that allow you to play to your maximum potential, then you can outperform your rating.

Incidentally, I followed the links (to the Kevin Spraggett site) that you posted in one of your previous threads. They were quite good, and touched upon some useful issues concerning our subject matter.

I fully understand where Meat is coming from. In these positions its not just the lack of time that is bad enough, its also keeping a clear head. I do not handle these positions at all well.

When I started this thread my intention was not to discover how to handle time-trouble more effectively, but rather how to avoid it altogether. This was what was troubling me so much. Here are my findings, so make a cup of tea and get comfortable....

Indeed, the idea of 'shuffling' without really changing the position is a good one, and I believe the answer more of less lies here. Being able to manoeuvre without changing the fundamental nature of the position is more difficult than it sounds, however players such as Karpov (always my favourite player) have shown themselves to be excellent at this. This is they key to it and its not something I have ever really been able to do quickly. There is no point 'shuffling' if it takes you 5+ minutes per shuffle move. This has always been my problem. Essentially, I am wasting time on moves such as this, rather than having it in store for the critical part of the game that is to come. Jockeying for position is an essential part of every sport, it occurs in football/boxing etc. As Meat's story demonstrated - there is no use in getting a wonderful position if you do not have the time to finish it off.

Therefore I have been changing my strategy, with some success. I have been doing two things, which I shall explain. These may not be relevant to everyone, but they are to me. Hopefully others will benefit too.

Firstly, and most importantly, I have tried to continue thinking and analysing on my opponent's time. This might sounds obvious, but for years I pretty much switched off/went for a walk/grabbed a tea or coffee/looked at the other games in progress when it was not my turn. Therefore, when it comes to my move I have had to start my analysis from scratch. Now, by thinking on my opponent's time I am much closer to making a decision and produce a move in a fraction of the time. Basically, all this time I was only doing half of the thinking that my opponent was. Against weaker opponents you can get away with this, however, against stronger or equally rated players I could hardly hope to achieve success operating at only 50% capacity.

Secondly, I have changed my view of the clock as part of the game. In the past, the clock was merely something that got in my way, something that prevented me spending the time I needed to play to my full potential. This is a bad way of seeing it, and I have adjusted this view, which runs thus......a game of chess is fought on two fronts, the board and the clock. Winning on one front will not bring success if you lose on the other, as Meat's example showed. I therefore try to fight against my opponent not only by producing the best moves that I can find (see point 1) but also pressuring him by trying to stay up on time. This is my goal, to pressure my opponent to breaking point on both fronts. I know how awful time pressure (and the psychological demons that go with it) can be, and my opponent has more chance of going wrong/cracking if he is pressured on both fronts. By my slow play, I was unwittingly giving my opponent all the time he needed to relax and produce the best moves.

This is my solution, which I am only just starting to implement in my own games. In my last 6 games I have actually been up on time(!) in 3 of them , while in the other three it was service as usual for me . The only downside to this is the amount of mental energy expended. This is ok for 1 game a day situations, but for tournaments with 2 or 3 games/day I find that I am struggling to sustain this high-tempo chess. Maybe I am just getting old!

Meat wrote on 11/06/07 at 15:58:22:

That's the $1,000,000 question

Personally I use beer, but that may not be the best for everyone

@Stigma: It may be not far-fetched to suggest that one's state of mind after that 'switch' is similar to a blitz game..but.. imagine yourself playing an important OTB game: You have already 'invested' 3 hours in the game, may feel excited, anxious, frightened or nervous. This in not what I usually feel in my blitz games where I am relaxed and have nothing to lose! (except my precious time of course  )

It seems to me that our fellow Meat's problem may be attributed to different things, e.g.: a) slow play (OK-then practice with blitz), b) his decision-making (as MNb & others have suggested), c) lack of nerves of steel (as I suggested), etc.
If the last one is the real cause of his problem he should work on that; not neccessarily by using blitz as a tool (i.e. it may be better to learn & practice how to calm down when under pressure than to mechanically play lots of blitz).

P.S.: I fully agree with what  "ErictheRed" said (he expressed my thoughts, but in a better way).  

Quote:


That is precisely the problem. 

Meat wrote on 11/05/07 at 10:06:51:


I am not sure, but maybe my point was not clear. You should have decided which course to take at move 30. If you decide to spend 9 minutes of the 10 remaining, your goal must be finishing your opponent of. If you are afraid of such a tactical struggle (but why? if you are sure you are winning by force), you should follow Eric's advice and stabilize your advantage. For this course it is better to take 1½ minute per move at most. It is clear to me now, that you got the worst of both courses ....