TN wrote on 01/06/09 at 00:14:51:

It was indeed a long time control. But my longest thinks were still around 20 mins., so even with many (not "most") 1-minute moves I had slight (acceptable) time trouble in a game or two.

@Dragan Glas: I think everybody agrees that book moves should be played quickly, and any difference comes from how we react to something unexpected. But on my modest 2150 level this happens often and early, and more due to my opponents' ignorance of "book" than my own.

@Gerry1970: Maybe the solution is to get used to winning ugly, and then try to gradually win less and less ugly by training!? Despite the overall result I made one really horrible decision ("winning" the bishop pair with ...Nf6-h5-xg3, hxg3 but opening up the h-file against my castled king in the process), and against an equal or stronger opponent I have no doubt I would have lost that game. So playing quickly in strategic positions will take some getting used to.

Btw. are you doing anything training-wise to combat time trouble, or just being more aware of the clock at the board?

MNb wrote on 01/06/09 at 10:33:44:

Of course, rushing out moves is not ideal. But I was hoping to solve that problem by training to think and calculate more efficiently, not by thinking less which is basically what I did this time around.
I guess I should work through my calculation books by Kotov, Aagaard and Dvoretsky, and see if there really is a difference

To Stigma:

You seem way too hard on yourself. I agree with TN's comment. 

From your sig I see you have read Rowson. IIRC he is the one that talked about winning ugly? Maybe it is necessary sometimes. It happens in other sports.

Good luck,

Gerry

Greetings,

I normally play the opening on "auto-pilot" - I know which opening/variation I'm going to play against whatever my opponents play. My repertoire is as well prepared as I can make it before I play in a tournament.

This may appear to be "superficial" in its approach, but that is not the case. I'm simply playing quickly whilst in my opening book, "storing-up" time for later in the game - when it becomes necessary to think, either about middlegame plans/positional considerations and/or the subsequent tactical complications.

Afterall, one is unlikely to improve on grandmaster theory, even in one's favourite openings - and certainly not over the board!  

As for Winawer77's comment about "indecisiveness", which I can understand, and to which Miki agreed ...

With all due respect, does this not reveal a lack of knowledge about oneself?

"Man, Know Thyself!" is surely applicable here!

If one has to decide - at the board - which variation suits one's style/temperament, is one really prepared?

Surely all such decisions should be made before one sits down at the board, so you can enjoy the game more, secure in your own mind that you're as well-prepared as you can possibly be - subject to your level of chess erudition.

By the way, in commenting on Winawer77's and Miki's posts, please understand that I mean no offence to either of them - or Stigma, who also appears to face time-trouble in games.

It is simply that as one who likes to sit down at the board feeling relaxed, prepared and ready for the game, it is difficult to understand why others leave themselves facing such decisions at the board.

Certainly, if the opponent leaves "book" - and I am here talking about where the opponent comes up with the latest theoretical wrinkle in a variation whose assessment is extremely dynamic (Najdorf Poisoned Pawn, for example) - then, if the move changes your intended plan/move, by all means consider a suitable reply.

As I mentioned earlier, I understand Winawer77's comment regarding "indecisiveness"...

Despite playing openings on "auto-pilot", I have come across time-trouble myself: this was where I faced opponents whose erudition, generally revealed by their rating, was markedly higher than mine - the quality of their game (or, more to the point, the lack of mine) clearly taxed me to the point that I was (over-)spending my "saved-up time" from the opening!

And there lay the clue to how to resolve this problem: I needed to improve myself - whether in tactical sight or positional grasp of the board or increased knowledge/understanding of openings/endings.

When I did, I no longer ran into time-trouble. My results improved - as did my confidence in my preparation, my enjoyment of the game and my rating.  

QED.

Kindest regards,

Dragan Glas

There is lots of good advice on time trouble in this thread. But I think to some extent you have to be a time-trouble addict to understand the depth of the problem. People tell me to speed up early, but it's PAINFUL to play all those quick, shallow moves; to some extent it goes against my motivation for playing chess

Anyway, I used myself as a guinea-pig in a recent tournament, and managed to avoid extreme time troubles by playing many of my (non-forced) moves in as little as 1 minute. 

The score was very satisfactory as I won the tournament! On the other hand I had a few suspicious positions against people I normally expect to beat, I accepted a very generous draw offer from a player rated 700 points below me, and in general I felt like more of a swindler and gambler than I normally do.

So I win, but my play is far from my ideal of a well-played game... and it was brought home to me even more clearly that I have to work hard on calculation (both efficiency and depth) to move to the next level. In the end I think only such hard work can improve my time management in a way that satisfies me.

TN wrote on 12/30/08 at 03:23:22:


Here and only here I disagree to some extent. I make sure I have more time (at least 5 minutes, preferably 10) left than a slow player, but still prefer to take a relatively long think myself. The first reason is that it feels nice to get a good grasp on the position myself. The second reason is that the slow opponent very often is seduced to take even a longer think after my well-considered move and thus increases his time troubles. The cause is probably psychological: the slow thinker becomes somewhat insecure (what was missed?) and wants to reconsider everything he has thought of before.
Of course my relatively long think is not a goal in itself; this time has to be spend usefully and efficient. If there is an obvious move (like castling or parry a direct threat) I play it quickly and will take my time the next move.

Note: If you suffer from time-trouble in many of your games and want to solve the problem, read on. If you don't want to solve the problem, don't bother.

I will begin with a quote from Alekhine:

'The fact that a player is very short time of time is, to my mind, as little to be considered an excuse as, for instance, the statement of the law-breaker that he was drunk at the time he committed the crime.'

This quote proves that, if a player wishes to solve the problem of time-trouble, he should see time-trouble as a reason for a lower quality of play in the later stages of a game, rather than an excuse. This is a more constructive mindset, and will resolve time-trouble addicts to take more action in solving the zeitnot issue.

My first recommendation for time-trouble addicts is to write down the clock times for every move, both theirs and their opponent's, until (if) they are down to their final 5 minutes, when you are no longer compelled to record your remaining moves. 

The advantages of this technique are that you will identify where you are spending too large a quantity of time, and where you are not spending enough time thinking over your moves. An analysis of your games with clock times recorded will also allow you to see to what extent you identify critical positions in your games. 

Secondly, it is of paramount importance to plan your alloted time to ensure that you spend enough time on critical positions without seriously compromising your play for the rest of the game. As an example, I present a plan for a game with 90 minutes on your clock and a 30 second increment per move:

1. For the first 15 moves, don't spend any more than 15 minutes. If you know 15 moves of theory that occur in your game, then you can make your moves very quickly. A similar suggestion was recommended by Botvinnik (he recommended '15 moves in 30 minutes', although at that time theory was not anywhere near as developed and time-controls were significantly longer). 

The only exception is if the position is fiendishly complicated and you cannot recall the theory (e.g. you have forgotten the theory of the sharpest lines of the Schliemann Ruy Lopez). But even then, one shouldn't spend any more than 20 minutes on the clock for the first 15 moves. 

2. At this stage, you should have 75-90 minutes on the clock left. A sensible objective would be to reach move 40 with at least 20 minutes on the clock (i.e. no more than 2.8 minutes a move on average, but no less than 2 minutes). 

Some players find it helpful to mark a dot on their scoresheet to remind them of approximately what time they should have left on the clock on a particular move. For instance, if you were out of book on move 14, marking move 27 as a reminder that you should have around 45 minutes on that move. 

3. Finally, after reaching a situation with less than 20 minutes on the clock, making sure that you start increasing the speed of your play, e.g not spending any more than 2 minutes on any of your moves, and making forced moves instantly.

Furthermore, 'Only play openings you are comfortable with' - John Emms. 

This is quite logical advice, as playing openings in which you have both knowledge and experience will allow you to play more quickly, as the tactics, ideas, plans and structures are more familiar to you.

If you do decide to experiment with a new opening in a tournament game, then it is strongly recommended (e.g. by the respected authors Emms and Aagaard) that you play some practice games in the variation. The best method of doing so is with a sparring partner: either a training partner, someone at your local chess club, or against a computer. 

It is also crucial to concentrate on your opponent's time as well as your own. It is important to have occasional breaks as well, but if you do not concentrate for a large portion of your opponent's time, you are placing yourself at a disadvantage. 

Not only will your opponent have more thinking time than you (if they concentrate on your time), but you are more likely to be unpleasantly surprised by your opponent's next move as you are not considering their possibilities on your time. This is particularly important during a time-scramble. 

(for clarification, this is a continuation of 'concentrate on your opponent's time') It is sometimes suggested to look at tactics and variations on your own time, and analyse positional ideas and plans whilst your opponent's clock is running. I wouldn't stick to this religiously, but it could be quite useful, particularly if your opponent is having a long think.

On another note, having a long think does not necessarily mean that you will play a better move than if you calculated for a few minutes, or even a few seconds if your move is completely forced. Eventually you will reach a stage where you will not benefit from thinking for any longer in a position, and in some cases indecisiveness can even result in a bad move as the player is unable to decide on a course of action. Even in a very complicated position with a maze of options for both sides, you should arrive at a conclusion and have confidence in your analysis. 

It also pays to play practically, rather than aiming to play flawlessly, which is unrealistic (it may be reassuring to realise that even Rybka does not play perfectly). 

It is better to continue making reasonable moves for the whole game (or at least until the time-scramble), rather than attempting to play perfectly in the early middlegame and finding yourself with only minutes for all of your remaining moves. Even with an increment of 30 seconds or move, one still doesn't have enough time to properly analyse critical positions and make a considered decision. 

Some final, brief pointers that could also be handy:

1) Be confident in your ability, but at the same time don't place unrealistic expectations on yourself. 

2) If your opponent is playing very slowly, this does not mean that you should imitate his speed of play. Only think for as long as is necessary (which in the majority of positions is no more than a few minutes). 

3) If you find yourself repeatedly playing through the same variations in your head, it could be a sign that you should decide on a move to play, as further thought is unlikely to assist you considerably.

4) If you are comfortably better, it usually isn't necessary to play flawlessly to win in a practical game. Players such as Karpov and Larsen have shown that in many cases continually playing reasonable moves that still keep up the pressure are often sufficient to win in practice.

5) If you are in a losing position, it is a good idea to play quickly so as not to provide your opponent with more time to calculate how to convert their winning position. 

I sincerely hope that some of this advice was useful, particularly if you are prone to time-trouble.

Bibliography:

'The Survival Guide to Competitive Chess' John Emms, Everyman Chess (2007)
'Chess for Tigers (3rd edition)' by Simon Webb, Batsford Chess (2005)
'Chess Software User Guide' by Byron Jacobs, John Emms and Jacob Aagaard, Everyman Chess (2003). 
Edit: 'Grandmaster Secrets: Openings' by Andy Soltis, Thinkers Press (2002).

No, I think that's not allowed even though I think I have expressed a few times your right to manage your time as you like and I think you prefer to neglect this and I think your opinions are formulated as general statements and I think if you had made clear that you had a completely personal point of view from the very beginning that would have save this thread a whole page and I think the level of our debate can even sink lower than it is now. I'm curious who will win this contest of childish behaviour.

Still I think you are a nice guy.