English Chess Forum

After reading threads about time trouble, I wondered if people who regularly get into time trouble should rush the opening part of the game a bit more often. Sit down and play you’re opening moves quickly to save time later. This includes people who I’ve seen think in a position where there is nothing to think about.

I’ve played an opponent who thought about 4 mins on a recapture when there was only one option (not even any cute tactics or checks in the air -just a straightforward pawn takes bishop move). Couldn’t understand why you would want to waste even as much as 1-2 mins on something that should take 10-15 seconds total after writing down your opponents move)

I used to play the time controls of: A 34 moves in 70mins then 15 extra or B 34 moves in 85mins then 20 extra

But this would apply to the standard 40 moves in 120mins then 60 extra per 20 moves.

I usually bash out the opening pretty quick, especially as white, it’s very rare I find myself out of my 4 prepared systems (depending on blacks responce to 1.d4) an opponent would have to play something totally unexpected (1.b5 or something) to throw me. As black I sometimes take a bit more time to make sure I’m getting the move order right, especially in the French.

It’s rare I find myself in any sort of time trouble, positional trouble sometimes though

I dont think opening moves have mcuh to do with being in time trouble later in the game (although i did see Stuart Conquest (he was white) take about an hour for his first move in a Tournament once.) I often play out my opening moves quickly. yet, I almost always end up with little time if any on the clock, regardless of time controls. I just want to use whatever time i have in middlegames to deal with threats i think are there or to calculate attacks on my opponents position (whetehr justified or not!!).

I do sometimes try to use the "barrage" technique i read in the chess for tigers book, but i'm not sure if that really helps all that much.

what is barrage in a nut shell

Kevin O'Rourke wrote:what is barrage in a nut shell

I think it's where you play a move with the intention of playing your next move instantly after your opponent plays his move. This requires that you preempt most of his likely responses and have a move ready for each of them.

This strategy is most effective when your opponent is in time trouble and you're not.

Kevin O'Rourke wrote:what is barrage in a nut shell

In the context in which Webb wrote it, he meant playing a short series of moves very quickly, particularly against an opponent who was short of time. It was partly outlawed, or at least reduced in effect, when it became mandatory to record your move no later than before you played the next one. The only exception to this being when you weren't playing with a thirty second increment and had less than five minutes remaining to a time control or game end.

The usual sequence is
play your move
press clock
record your move
Opponent plays move
presses clock
record his move.

It is however legal to use the sequence
play your move
press clock
Opponent plays move
presses clock
record your move
record his move.

or
Opponent plays move
presses clock
play your move
press clock
record his move
record your move

I had a game once where the sequence was opponent moves presses clock, writes down his move, writes down "my move" I guess I could have claimed distraction, but I think we both saw the funny side - at least it was a good move he wrote down

I think playing a short series of moves very quickly because your opponent is in time trouble is often a mistake. It is probably better to just play your normal game and try to ignore their time trouble if you can. ( Not easy !) David Howell seems to do very well when short of time.

you shouldn't waste time thinking about standard recapatures when you're opponent is short of time i'd say

To reduce time trouble I would recommend some or all of:

1. Knowing your opening systems better - ideally you can bash out 10 to 15 moves in a couple of minutes to get ahead (or at least play sensible moves without having to check if you've left a cheapo on)
2. Consciously trying to play a couple of moves instantly (obvious recaptures are handy for this - of course this requires predicting the move and analysing the response in advance (see point 4) and not suddenly and belatedly wondering if there might be a clever zwischenzug). Thirty seconds or so saved now could make all the difference
3. If you have spent 10 minutes or so swithering between 2 different moves ("which rook?" is the classic case) then, as John Nunn says, it probably doesn't matter that much.
4. Be more disciplined at the board and think about what your opponent may do - yes, all the other games in the hall are much more interesting, and yes, you do need to know if the team needs you to win or whether a draw will be good, and yes, stretching your legs might relieve some tension...
5. Sometimes you have to commit to a plan and play the moves, not reanalyse everything again and again - it could be that you have already played a losing move and adding time-trouble to a bad position may not help
6. Realise that 99% of people wont care if you win or loss, and even if the other 1% are your team-mates, they probably don't really care that much either. (I suspect that some people are time-trouble addicts, and the excuse "I was probably winning but lost on time" somehow seems better than "I was outplayed").

Of course, if you do find yourself in time-trouble, is there advice that you should follow? It may depend on how serious the situation is both positionally and wrt time. Maybe some of the following?

• Having a good idea of how many moves you can sensibly make in the given time (so not necessarily having to move instantly)
• Having a stock of checks or captures that could be played
• Possibly having a mental list of "dos and don'ts" - "if he takes my B, don't take back with the R as that is stopping the knight fork", or "the king has to go to f8 as Kh8 loses"
• Trying to do something constructive rather than just make moves;
• Ultimately, making moves on the side of the board nearest the clock can help if you are desperate.
• Maybe keep calm?

And if the boot is on the other foot - if you have followed all the sage advice and it is your opponent in time trouble?

I guess if you are winning, then take your time, and make the best moves regardless, but if you are looking for a swindle?

Do you blitz, or is it worth appearing serene and unconcerned and allowing the tension to ratchet up? Look for something unexpected?

[edit] opinion seems divided on the "Barrage" technique

great advice thanks.

Alistair Campbell wrote: • Possibly having a mental list of "dos and don'ts" - "if he takes my B, don't take back with the R as that is stopping the knight fork", or "the king has to go to f8 as Kh8 loses"

When facing an opponent with a Knight, keep your important pieces on opposite colour squares to one another. It's a way of avoiding Knight forks, without having to explicitly spot them all.

I am not so sure about trying to make a couple of instant moves - they tend to be the ones you regret , I would say more tend to try to avoid spending too long on any one move unless it is so critical that it requires in depth calculation (and even then if it does try and work out if it is really worth spending the time or whether you have done sufficient calculation to allow you to make an educated guess). I never follow this advice and always get in time trouble though

I suspect many players that always get in time trouble often waste time trying to evaluate two or moves that are so similar either would be ok, and then as a result have no time for key moves just before time controls, the better they are at blitz the more they get away with this. I also suspect this encourages players that are very good at blitz to play slowly so in fact it is often the players that play the best fast who play the slowest.

THE KNIGHT. a quick check is to have a piece on different colour as your opponent's knight so it can't attack it. Also 2 squares diagonally away from a knight is the only exception. The steed can't get you.

David Shepherd wrote: I also suspect this encourages players that are very good at blitz to play slowly so in fact it is often the players that play the best fast who play the slowest.

Grishuk is one of the current examples at the highest level. Although he almost always runs short of time, I don't think David Howell has a reputation as a specialist blitz player.

For league players outside of adjournment and adjudication strongholds, it might depend a bit where the intermediate time control, if any, is placed, but over a three hour session, you will never be in time pressure if you can pace yourself to complete all your moves in 85 minutes.

It would be my advice to players who repeated lose when short of time, even if in a winning position, that they should analyse opening ideas in the peace and calm of their study (Bronstein) rather than at the board with the clock ticking or silently counting down.