Time. Whether
there was a beginning to time a la The Big Bang or an end to time with a Big
Crunch or it will continue forever expanding with space as heat death
approaches for all matter in the universe... These are interesting questions
for physics. There are many
challenging questions and aspects of time for the intellectually curious. Two great books I recently read on the
subject are “In Search of Time: The Science of a Curious Dimension” by Dan
Falk, and “From Eternity to Here: The Quest for the Ultimate Theory of Time” by
Sean M. Carroll. I highly
recommend both books.
As human beings, however, there is one aspect of time that
is inescapable. For us, it is
limited. There is, of course, the
obvious endpoint: death. But on
top of that we are surrounded by many more limits. We have a certain time to be at work, which limits our sleep
time and the time we have to eat our morning meal before heading to work (which
all too many people skip precisely because of this limit). We have limited time to complete our
tasks at work. Our vacation time
is limited. Our time for leisurely
reading the two recommended books above is limited. Etcetera, etcetera.
This is why the chess Gods gave us clocks. Our game also has the same limits as
life. As it should.
No matter how much natural talent a person has, there is
only so far they can progress in chess before they have to start doing
some work to get
better (Jose Raul Capablanca being the one exception). They need to study endings, strategy,
tactics, tactics, tactics, and some openings. They should play through and try to understand top-level Grand Master
games. They should review their
past games. Etcetera, etcetera.
Just as a great football player puts in hours upon hours of work to give
his one-hour performance on Sunday (or Monday night), so too must chess players
prepare for the game.
Once all of our preparations have been made (within the
limits time as imposed upon us) it is time
to start the game. And to start
the game, we start the clock.
Each player now has equal time to do battle and see who is
better. Who is better at openings,
strategy, tactics, tactics, tactics, endings and time management.
Mt four most recent games demonstrate this. The first two were against a much
higher rated player and the last two were against an equally rated
opponent.
A few weeks ago I played Jim, a strong expert, (rated just
under 2100 USCF – compared to my just under 1700 he should have easily been the winner) in two G45 (game in 45 minutes with
a five second delay per move).
I had the black pieces in the first game. I met 1.e4 with the Sicilian and we
entered the Four Knights variation.
We each used less than 5 minutes to make our first 10 moves. On my eleventh move I deviated from
opening theory, but with a concrete idea behind my move (in retrospect, while
the idea is certainly playable (I believe), I will most likely continue down
the well worn paths of theory in future games of this variation). Not until move 17 did either of us stop
for a long think. I spent 13 minutes on move 17 coming up
with a plan. Up to that point we
were both roughly equal on time.
Now I do believe that you should take time to come up with plans –
especially in critical positions – however, in a G45 game 13 minutes is really
just too long. Unless the result
is some long forced mate 1/3 of the clock really should not be burned. In fact, it is probably better to just
find a (relatively) “quick” way to improve your position rather than attempt to
calculate a long, long sequence with such time pressures. For the remainder of the game I
retained this time deficit. I got
into a tough position where I should be able to hold a draw, but it would NOT
be easy. On move 31, still 13
minutes down (Jim had 19 remaining to my 6), I made an error that cost the
draw. I still fought, but had to
stop recording moves after move 36 where Jim had 13 minutes to my 1
minute.
I pride myself on learning from my mistakes. So, one of my major mental focuses
throughout the week as my next two games approached was on “time
equality.” Don’t give the opponent
any large time advantages to capitalize on. Interestingly, due to no fault of my own, this would turn
out not to be a problem of any real consequence for me the following week. It was my opponent who was the time
trouble addict.
My opponent, Don, and I were rated almost dead equal in the
USCF ratings, so any outcome could be expected. However, he is someone who most definitely should not play
shorter time controls. Here’s what
went down.
I had the white pieces in our first game and we went into my
Catalan opening. [I admit that I
do not (currently) know the opening theory of the Catalan as well as I should,
but I do know many themes, piece set-ups, and ideas. If you are going to be deficient somewhere in your opening
knowledge, I think it is better to be deficient on the concrete
variations. Know the themes,
set-ups, and ideas. What good is
knowledge of 23 move deep openings if you don’t know how to play them?] Strangely enough, I have noticed over
the last year that I have been employing the Catalan that many (club) players
with the black pieces play right into the opening, but then have no real
considered responses on how to handle the positions. This game followed that same pattern. However, there was one major
difference. TIME! For the first six moves everything was
rather standard. We had each fully
developed our kingside and castled and I had spent one minute and my opponent
four minutes. But here, my
opponent began his collapse. Moves
seven eight and ten cost my opponent too much.
Move seven: six minutes
Move eight: seven minutes
Move ten: nine minutes
That’s 22 minutes for these three moves alone. If there were some tactical shots this
might have been justified.
However, this was a nice closed position with no immediate threats for
either side. In a static position
like we had – and with such short time controls (remember that this is game in
45 minutes) – this seems like a horrible investment in time. So after move ten I had an 18 minute
superiority on the clock. It only
got worse from there. I will admit
that he did reach a superior strategic position in the game. In fact, when he flagged (and lost) the
game on time, I was most likely strategically lost. There were many ways for him to continue improving his
position while I would really rather just “pass” on moves because I could only
make my position worse. However,
the clock (TIME) decided the game.
When he ran out of time on move 22, I still had 23 minutes left.
In our next game his time addiction was more justifiable,
but still costly. In this game he
used the Morra Gambit against my Sicilian Defense. A super sharp tactical opening like the Morra demands that time be spent. In fact, I was guilty of not spending enough time early on. For my eighth move I could have won a
second pawn and reached a super solid position, but instead I spent less than
one minute and play an “automatic” move that hands over positional superiority
and an aggressive attack to my opponent.
Luckily I was able to neutralize the attack within a short time
period. And it was here, where the
position became less dynamic, that my opponent fell prey to his time
issues. He spent 11 minutes on his
15th move, and another nine minutes on his 16th
move. Almost half of his time blown on these two moves! By move 20 he had less than one minute
on the clock and his attack had fizzled.
I subsequently sacrificed the exchange for two pawns and an active king
position and on move 25 his flag fell.
The final position is most likely a draw, but with 12 minutes on my
clock to his less than one there was little chance of his being able to hold
it. This time I had used time to
my advantage!
The next week I faced Shaun, rated a solid 200 points above
me. I felt, though, that I could
still have good results against him.
And, time was 1) still very much on my mind, and 2) did, in fact, play
an important role in both of our games.
In our fist game he opened with 1. f4 – Bird’s Opening. Ugh. It is an opening that I have little respect for. In fact, prior to this game my score
against the opening was 3 wins, 3 draws, and zero losses. When he pushed 1. f4 it was not too
much of a shock for me. Now, I
knew he is not a regular Bird player, but rather he felt that because of the
ratings disparity between us, be could take me out of my openings knowledge and
get a good game from the get go. I
have to admit that it really rather pissed me off. It was a sign of disrespect. Well, I had to strike back! I have two systems that
I consistently use against the Bird.
One: “the recipe”, and Two: From’s Gambit. Nowadays, From’s Gambit really should not cause white any
problems – as long as white knows his stuff!
However, it is surprising how few regular Bird players do
not know their
stuff. Opening theory that
is. So, I sat there thinking. This guy is NOT a regular Bird player
and is playing it solely to take be out of theory. My antidote: put him into a highly theoretical line – play
From’s Gambit! After I played
Lasker’s crazy g5 pawn push on move four, he immediately stopped for a “think”
and burned four minutes to make his fifth move. Ha! I’ve got
him, I thought. He played a move
that I thought was incorrect on
his fifth move. So, here is a
point where I should have stopped and used my time for a long think. We are early in the game, yes, but in a
highly tactical and theoretical line and the opponent has played an unfamiliar
move. This is the time to use your
time! However, I did not. In fact, his move was “okay” according
to theory, while I thought that it was a mistake. Again, when you think the opponent has made a mistake, use
your TIME to see WHY it is a mistake!
I did not. What he played
really just puts the game back into a level position with no real worries for
either side, but I played it as if mate was forthcoming by attacking with full
force and sacrificing material without a clear mate visible in the near
future. WRONG! Don’t do that! Again, use your time to see the outcome
of the position. So, to make a
long story short, because I did not properly use my time, I attacked blindly
and had to resign facing a forced mate in two on move 31. (Side note: I have now refreshed my
memory on that possible fourth move and am properly prepared to meet it in the
future.)
In our next game he met my 1. d4 with 1... c5. This is – for all intents and purposes
– really just another attempt to dodge theory. Is he really so afraid of my opening knowledge? We went into a Benoni position where I
was absolutely better for quite a while.
But, as he really is a better player, my position did start to
collapse. On move 10, though, he
handed me a five-minute time advantage.
I nursed that advantage the entire rest of the game. On move 23 he won a pawn, and I knew
from then on I was playing for a draw.
On move 40 he won a second pawn, however, I had specifically planned to
let that pawn fall, because I saw that I should be able to force the draw once
it dropped. On move 40, also, I
had eight minutes left while he had three (I was still holding my five minute
advantage). I stopped recording
moves at move 50 (I had four minutes, he had less than 30 seconds). Soon thereafter, when he had 2 seconds
to my four minutes, and he faced a threefold repetition of moves I offered a
draw and he accepted. Where my
strategic and tactical skills had failed me in this game, my time management
had saved me.
We should always strive to play the best possible moves in a
given position. However, there is
a limit on the time we are able to use for a game. Consequently, sometimes the best move is not where we place
a chess piece, rather it is where we place either our or our opponent’s
clock. Time is a tool. Time is limited. USE IT!
