- Blind mode tutorial
lichess.org
Donate

Time is a resource, use it!

I believe time managment is a very personal thing, just as openings, there is no one golden scheme to follow, as there is no golden repertoire. Some players play best when they blitz out the opening, other spent time on moves they know and played multiple times and there is no better option.

Very common is for players to panic when time runs low. Do not look at the clock. Play at the right pace. Looking at the clock instead of the board is lost time.

From what I understand, to cope with the fear of low time you reccomend not looking at the clock? Also what pace is right? I don't get it. If you get into low time and are afraid you must do something about it. Either focus on making decissions faster in early stages of the game, or get comfortable with playing on increment. Not looking at the clock won't make you magically play faster, or better with low time.

Bullet players play 60 moves in 1 minute, but over the board classical players often panic when they have to complete 20 moves in 10 minutes.

It's a weird argument. Bullet players make multiple blunders a game, it doesn't matter if you don't flag when you hang all your pieces. Also is a person scared of low time a good bullet player?

Most chess games are essentially decided by move 30. The game may drag on to move 40 or 50, with the losing side trying in vain to avoid the inevitable. I recommend to use all time by move 30 and finish the game on increment.

Again, that varies A LOT depending on the player. And player's repertoire. In attacking positions an equal endgame is very unlikely, so spending all your time in 30 moves is justified, but doing so in Symmetrical Grunfeld, or Symmetrical English is questionable. And that still depends on the player, if you feel very comfortable in endgames you can afford to spend more time to get there.

Bad advice: the opening phase should be played quickly. This is wrong: the opening should be played slowly and thoughtfully so as to reach a state of concentration and not blunder the first out of book move.

Reaching a state of concentration by playing slower is again personal, not necessary for everyone (I mean playing slower to get there, concentration is obviously needed)

Assume you know 10 moves of theory leading to a slight advantage for white. If you blitz out those 10 moves, then what do you do on move 11? Blitz as well as if by inertia? That move is then likely to be a blunder. Start a long think? That tells your opponent that you are out of book and warns him that the next move is your own and more likely to be wrong than the previous, theory moves.

To answer your question, me personally, when I'm familiar with the opening I play it very quickly. When I know the best move, I play it. Even if I'm not sure of the best continuation at the moment, I'll have time to figure it out on my opponent's move, and on my next. So assuming you play openings you know, not just memorise then you should be able to relatively quickly deduce the best followup after your theory ends. If you play some unique position for the first time (aka you don't know the best move and can't figure it out quickly), then yes, start a long think — it's necessary. It doesn't matter it "warns your opponent you don't know the best move", because it doesn't mean you will play a bad one. Focusing on using your time to pressure your opponent will lead to lower quality of moves (from hurtful experience).

Never calculate when the opponent has the move. You do not know which of say 3 candidate moves he will select, so 67% of your calculations are a waste of time and energy.

That's just untrue. Your calculations help you understand the position, you come up with plans, see possible tactics, so even if your opponent plays something unexpected, it will be easier for you to evaluate the move using what you learned from these calculations.

It's like if you were to prepare a position for your opponent, where Black has 8 different moves, and you don't have time to check all of them, so you check none, cuz most of them will be a waste. No! You check what you can, and if it happens that your opponent plays something different, your prep doesn't get wasted, because you've broadened your understanding of the position and now it's easier to come up with best followup.

TL;DR In my opinion time management is about finding your own flow. It's okay to spend more time in the opening if you can back it up with faser and strong play in the middlegame or the endgame. It's okay to tank in the middlegame if you build time advantage from the opening, or feel comfortable blitzing endgames. And to improve with time management, you must find what eats most of your time, whether it's bad opening preparation, getting distracted, calculating pointless variations, or hesitation. Define it and work on it

I believe time managment is a very personal thing, just as openings, there is no one golden scheme to follow, as there is no golden repertoire. Some players play best when they blitz out the opening, other spent time on moves they know and played multiple times and there is no better option. > Very common is for players to panic when time runs low. Do not look at the clock. Play at the right pace. Looking at the clock instead of the board is lost time. From what I understand, to cope with the fear of low time you reccomend not looking at the clock? Also what pace is right? I don't get it. If you get into low time and are afraid you must do something about it. Either focus on making decissions faster in early stages of the game, or get comfortable with playing on increment. Not looking at the clock won't make you magically play faster, or better with low time. > Bullet players play 60 moves in 1 minute, but over the board classical players often panic when they have to complete 20 moves in 10 minutes. It's a weird argument. Bullet players make multiple blunders a game, it doesn't matter if you don't flag when you hang all your pieces. Also is a person scared of low time a good bullet player? > Most chess games are essentially decided by move 30. The game may drag on to move 40 or 50, with the losing side trying in vain to avoid the inevitable. I recommend to use all time by move 30 and finish the game on increment. Again, that varies A LOT depending on the player. And player's repertoire. In attacking positions an equal endgame is very unlikely, so spending all your time in 30 moves is justified, but doing so in Symmetrical Grunfeld, or Symmetrical English is questionable. And that still depends on the player, if you feel very comfortable in endgames you can afford to spend more time to get there. > Bad advice: the opening phase should be played quickly. This is wrong: the opening should be played slowly and thoughtfully so as to reach a state of concentration and not blunder the first out of book move. Reaching a state of concentration by playing slower is again personal, not necessary for everyone (I mean playing slower to get there, concentration is obviously needed) > Assume you know 10 moves of theory leading to a slight advantage for white. If you blitz out those 10 moves, then what do you do on move 11? Blitz as well as if by inertia? That move is then likely to be a blunder. Start a long think? That tells your opponent that you are out of book and warns him that the next move is your own and more likely to be wrong than the previous, theory moves. To answer your question, me personally, when I'm familiar with the opening I play it very quickly. When I know the best move, I play it. Even if I'm not sure of the best continuation at the moment, I'll have time to figure it out on my opponent's move, and on my next. So assuming you play openings you know, not just memorise then you should be able to relatively quickly deduce the best followup after your theory ends. If you play some unique position for the first time (aka you don't know the best move and can't figure it out quickly), then yes, start a long think — it's necessary. It doesn't matter it "warns your opponent you don't know the best move", because it doesn't mean you will play a bad one. Focusing on using your time to pressure your opponent will lead to lower quality of moves (from hurtful experience). > Never calculate when the opponent has the move. You do not know which of say 3 candidate moves he will select, so 67% of your calculations are a waste of time and energy. That's just untrue. Your calculations help you understand the position, you come up with plans, see possible tactics, so even if your opponent plays something unexpected, it will be easier for you to evaluate the move using what you learned from these calculations. It's like if you were to prepare a position for your opponent, where Black has 8 different moves, and you don't have time to check all of them, so you check none, cuz most of them will be a waste. No! You check what you can, and if it happens that your opponent plays something different, your prep doesn't get wasted, because you've broadened your understanding of the position and now it's easier to come up with best followup. TL;DR In my opinion time management is about finding your own flow. It's okay to spend more time in the opening if you can back it up with faser and strong play in the middlegame or the endgame. It's okay to tank in the middlegame if you build time advantage from the opening, or feel comfortable blitzing endgames. And to improve with time management, you must find what eats most of your time, whether it's bad opening preparation, getting distracted, calculating pointless variations, or hesitation. Define it and work on it

#2
Thank you for your feedback. I profited from it to edit the text to clarify it more and add some examples.

"In attacking positions an equal endgame is very unlikely"
Here is a counterexample: after all the fireworks they reach an endgame table base draw, that black botches twice and white once.
https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1993385

#2 Thank you for your feedback. I profited from it to edit the text to clarify it more and add some examples. "In attacking positions an equal endgame is very unlikely" Here is a counterexample: after all the fireworks they reach an endgame table base draw, that black botches twice and white once. https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1993385

Nice blog; I really needed it.

Nice blog; I really needed it.

I recommend to use all time by move 30 and finish the game on increment.
and then blunder the game away in a winning position because you have no time?

> I recommend to use all time by move 30 and finish the game on increment. **and then blunder the game away in a winning position because you have no time?**

#5
"blunder the game away in a winning position because you have no time"

  • You have increment, so you have time.
    You have thought previously about arriving at the winning position, that helps in winning it.
    Endgame technique helps in converting winning positions even low on time.
    It is better to have a winning position low on time than a lost position with plenty of time on your clock.
#5 "blunder the game away in a winning position because you have no time" * You have increment, so you have time. You have thought previously about arriving at the winning position, that helps in winning it. Endgame technique helps in converting winning positions even low on time. It is better to have a winning position low on time than a lost position with plenty of time on your clock.

You will not make good moves spending 30 seconds on each one, that's just how it is. It doesn't matter if you have good technique if the position requires you to calculate (for example a pawn race). You don't have enough time to calculate everything and I don't see how you can argue against this.

You will not make good moves spending 30 seconds on each one, that's just how it is. It doesn't matter if you have good technique if the position requires you to calculate (for example a pawn race). You don't have enough time to calculate everything and I don't see how you can argue against this.

If you use more time than your opponent, then you can look deeper and you are more likely to obtain a winning position.
All that time spent should help you in finishing the game on increment.
I don't see how you can argue against this.

If you use more time than your opponent, then you can look deeper and you are more likely to obtain a winning position. All that time spent should help you in finishing the game on increment. I don't see how you can argue against this.

Among the “old-school greats” like Capablanca, Tal, Keres, Petrosian, and Botvinnik, who do you think had the most exemplary balance between thinking long in the opening and maintaining enough time for calculation in the middlegame and endgame?

Among the “old-school greats” like Capablanca, Tal, Keres, Petrosian, and Botvinnik, who do you think had the most exemplary balance between thinking long in the opening and maintaining enough time for calculation in the middlegame and endgame?

#9
Capablanca played rather fast: he saw the good moves quickly. Fischer too.
Tal and Keres were not afraid to think long in the opening, I presented two examples.
Also Reshevsky and Bronstein thought long in the opening and frequently had to complete many moves in little time to reach move 40.
I do not know how Petrosian and Botvinnik handled time.

#9 Capablanca played rather fast: he saw the good moves quickly. Fischer too. Tal and Keres were not afraid to think long in the opening, I presented two examples. Also Reshevsky and Bronstein thought long in the opening and frequently had to complete many moves in little time to reach move 40. I do not know how Petrosian and Botvinnik handled time.