MNb wrote on 12/27/08 at 16:18:19:
Miki wrote on 12/26/08 at 23:00:24:
And if I had to choose between playing strong (and spending lots of time on only seemingly unimportant nuances) or routinely playing out my moves just to keep my clock high I would always choose the first option.
My point is that one should avoid such choices. You neglect this, which seems to be a common sophism for time trouble addicts. Your time management does not necessarily mean a huge disadvantage, especially if you're a time trouble beast. But it still means that you give the opening more attention than the middle game and endgame and that certainly causes a lack of balance in your play. No smart logic can argue against this.
Well, obviously I don't spend that much time each and every time, and of course that I'd rather find satisfactory moves as fast as possible.
While it might superficially seem that I give my openings much more attention, this is only partly correct. My goal is to achieve such position from the opening which will result in a middlegame that fits best to my style of play. So, my thinking over seemingly unimportant opening nuances has important implications on the resulting middlegame (or sometimes even endgame(!) if you consider pawn structures and other long-term things relevant to the endgame).
There usually are at least 2-3 playable and perfectly fine moves (sometimes even more, depending on the opening) at the beginning of the chess game (till the middlegame), and while I could play any of those in no time, my goal is to play the moves which are most likely to lead to the positions which I am most comfortable with and which fit my style. This will also enable me to play faster in the middlegame because I will already have lots of the plans worked out. (while those who routinely developed their pieces will only now start to really think, and it might already be a bit too late)
MNb wrote on 12/27/08 at 16:18:19:
Miki wrote on 12/26/08 at 23:00:24:
And it does not have to do with my opening preparation, I mean quite a few of my opponents don't even follow theory as deep as I have learned it - in that case it's even more important to think hard from the very beginning.
This suggests you learn your opening theory the wrong way - namely by heart. If you have prepared your openings well you even understand where your pieces have to go the etc. the first 15 moves or so if your opponents deviate. One should not figure out such things behind the board.
In the case one really gets caught in unknown theory - something that has happened very rarely to me last 25 years, despite of my bad memory - one can fall back on the general recipe, something I gave in my previous post: activate your pieces, castle, place one or two pawns in the centre, in short play according to elementary opening principles. If one also watches out for some tactics there is no need for excessive timespending (wasting?!) in the opening.
In my early chess days I used to play London system with quite a success. And while I knew lots of theory and understood all typical plans that are to be considered I have encountered so many set-ups that are not covered in the books (mostly because black players rarely know how to deal with London, Trompowsky etc., concentrating more on mainstream openings). Of course, I would have to rely on general principles and ideas from London but that was not always possible. Sometimes even the tiniest change in my opponent's setup would have made a great difference.
MNb wrote on 12/27/08 at 16:18:19:
Btw all these thoughts are not mine. They stem from all kinds of chess manuals, some of them several decades old.
Ok, so you are telling me that you are implementing other people's thoughts in your games. If it works for you, great. But remember, not all "chess manuals" offer sound advices.
Btw, if you ever followed a live game between 2 strong players you would see that their thinking processes are much more unpredictable and random then they teach you in those manuals.
I have very often seen GM's spend 15-20 minutes (sometimes even more) on a single opening move. And it's not because they don't know the theory (they know it better then any of us), it's because they try to visualize all the potential options and arising middlegames (or even endgames). They also take into consideration their opponent and their style and try to come up with the move that is not only routinely good but also as unpleasant as possible for their opponent. (And even that is not all to consider during the opening phase, there are other factors like for example, are you playing for a win or for a draw etc., etc.)
Pages: 
Time Trouble Help (Read 26258 times)
