Quote:


No offence taken  However, I would like to clarify what I meant by 'indecisiveness'. 

I not referring to a wider gameplan, choice of opening, or selection of variations when playing, certainly not when referring to playing style. This is the sort of thing that should be decided on before the clock starts, rather than spending valuable time at the board doing this kind of soul searching.

I am referring to those situations where there are 2 or 3 roughly equal possibilities and excessive time is spent deciding between them.

As I mentioned in an earlier post, this is due the law of diminishing returns - after a certain amount of time further time spent thinking will produce fewer and fewer returns. So, for optimum efficiency, one would have to make a move around this point. So, by indecisiveness, I am referring to the situations you have gained as much information as is possible from your thinking time, but still waste further valuable time deciding on a move.

And yes, I think there is a psychological reason behind this. The cure, anyone? 

Greetings,

Stigma wrote on 01/06/09 at 17:36:56:

I thought as much; that you're playing weaker opponents - at least, in terms of their knowledge of your openings/variations - they may be your equal or better in other areas of the game, hmmm?

That also may be a reason for your running into time-trouble.

Speaking of opponents not knowing as much of your opening/variation as yourself, that too can be a problem - when they diverge from the "main line", you may then find yourself trying to remember why their move is bad!

Many years ago, whilst playing in a tournament in Dublin, I had black against a 2100-rated opponent (my rating was just under 1400 - 1399, to be precise!). He played 1 e4 and I played my favourite Dragon. I could tell from the rate at which he was moving, that by move 5(!) - when I played ..., g6 - he didn't know what to do! He started brooding and then played 6 f4 (Levenfish Variation) - I continued playing quickly (he was taking so long to play each move, I had plenty of time to think!).

My main problem was that it was the first time anyone had played this variation against me - everybody played the Yugoslav/Rauzer Attack!

I was racking my brains, during his thinking time, trying to recall the lines as he well-and-truly wandered off the beaten track - I ended up having to work things out at the board, rather than rely on my memorisation of theory, which is basically what I'd have done with the Yugoslav.

[I actually missed the correct continuation for myself, due to my lack of confidence that it was the right move - Dragon players will know what I mean when I say it was the queen for three minor piece exchange line.]

The game became a extremely complicated middle- and end-game saga, which - sadly - I eventually lost...  

After the game, he admitted that he hadn't had a clue about what to do against the Dragon and had just played 6 f4 because he knew that it was played in the Najdorf!  

Following that game, I made a special point of knowing - and understanding! - what to do against the weaker/bad moves which are generally only mentioned in passing.

Not that this variation is weak or bad - I was just using that as a example.

Needless to say, however, that the next opponent who played the Levenfish against me found that he wasn't in a "safer, positional line"!  

[I'd been practicing playing with the three minor pieces against the queen.]

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas

drkodos wrote on 01/06/09 at 17:52:59:


At least you admit there are exceptions. I would have thought that particularly in a debate or discussion, such as is going on all the time on this forum, "I think" is appropriate. There is a difference between stating a (supposed) fact and an opinion, and it's useful to be able to differentiate the two. I realize that I must appear very "passive agressive" to you, since I probably use "I think" a lot, almost without thinking!

Wise words, Dragan Glas. 

Yes, most of my games are played against weaker opponents. I know this is not ideal, but at least I can set myself the challenge of winning as many games as possible and finishing high in tournaments. Time trouble has sometimes been a hindrance in this, but maybe I'm getting somewhere now. I also often play openings that are not the absolute main lines, particularly with black, and this might contribute to getting out of book early. Not everybody below 2000 knows 15 moves of Pirc theory, for example.
Travelling to stronger (international) tournaments is a rare treat but I always thoroughly enjoy it.

Off topic: 
I think "I think" displays an understanding that my view is not the only possible one, and other views are allowed and even encouraged. "I think" are the words of a thoughtful person who wants to hear all sides of an argument, while at the same time clearly stating what his/her opinion is. The statement without "I think" might well be made with persuasion in mind, or expecting deferrence and automatic acceptance from others. This depends a lot on context of course.

Actually I think drkodos has it backwards and "I think" is often an example of clear communication; it specifies a personal opinion as opposed to a law, an order, or a social norm. Of course if it is over-used it ceases to have real meaning, but used discriminately it can still have value. But I'm not opening any trans-atlantic cans of worm this time around

Miki wrote on 01/06/09 at 15:52:45:



I think it reads better now.

Less offensive.

Miki wrote on 12/30/08 at 00:31:15:


This remark is condescending and you should apologize for it.

As to the point, whether anyone precedes his assertion by "I think" is less important than context in determining the degree of intended generality.  Many times, very strong generalizations are preceded by "I think."  In this case, to me as well as others, it did seem that you were suggesting that a policy of trying to keep up on time was not a good one in general.  In any case, if MNb misunderstood you, you should have come back more politely, not with "Nice try but..." and the remark I quoted above.  It spreads bad feeling to be so adversarial.

As it is, instead of discussing chess, we cavil over word choice.

Person A says: ''It is very easy to become a grandmaster''. 

Person B says: ''I think that it is very easy to become a grandmaster''.

See the difference?

If not, I'll explain it to you: first sentence is an absolute statement implying that it, indeed, is very easy for everyone to become a grandmaster. Sentence laid out in this form doesn't really accept that to some people, becoming a grandmaster is not such an easy task.
Second statement is clearly laid out in a form of an opinion. In person B's opinion it is very easy to become a grandmaster. Person B could be a very talented player, also well aware that not everyone is born with such a great talent. By saying ''I think...'' he clearly expresses that TO HIM becoming a grandmaster is very easy while being fully aware that this is not everyone's opinion, and that some people would find it an impossible task.

P.S.
This is now definitely last of me on this topic. But for anyone wishing to enroll in any further off-topic discussion feel free to PM me.