USING YOUR TIME ON THE CLOCK

 I played a strong player last Wednesday at Asia Square. He was a young man who I perceived to be someone picking up the game over the last couple of years. When a friend of mine came by to visit the meetup, I arranged for them to play a 5 + 3 game and soon a Ruy Lopez Berlin was on the board. The game was close, both sides did not try to breach each other's defences until Black decided that White wasn't going to try. He then went to open the a-file and got into White's camp eventually creating problems which White could not solve and lost on time.

He asked if I would mind playing a longer time control game say 15 + 10, as he expressed that time management was his weakness primarily  as he could not sense the critical moments in the game to think longer. 

A Siclian this time. I essayed the Smith Morra Gambit, after which we were into 13 moves in the theory (which he didn't know much but managed to get it right).  Then he hung a pawn. Hmm. Then another commital move which gave White some thought for complications. I must admit that I've completely missed his move trapping my Rook which made me seek an interesting continuation. 

I felt that this was the position he should have exercised some careful though before opening the c8 Bishop's diagonal. It was true that he needed activity but perhaps that may have given White more chances to work on the Black king. Stockfish recommended simplification with Rd8 and not without reason - Black needs to carefully trade and free his pieces rather than trying to wrestle the intiative with Bg4. The continuation 15.Rxf6?! looked speculative but I could not see how to continue if Black were to consolidate with 15..gxf6 and 16..Qd8 followed by Kg7. So I tried 15. Nd5 missing Ne8 which was played in less than a minute. This drove me to play the favourable exchange sac with Rdxc6! which the following position emerged. 

Here I was only looking at regaining material missing  18. Ng5! which should yield me an advantage after 18.Ng5 Nf6 (18...Qd8 19.Qh5 Nf6 20.Nxf7+ Rxf7 21.Qxf7) 19.Nxc8 Raxc8 20.Nxf7+ Rxf7 21.Bxf7

Looking at my clock he had 14+ minutes while I had around 6. Making the decision to keep the game simple in view of my time. I chose 18.Nxc6 Qc7 19.Rc3? (Qe3 is much better) Bg4! 20.Ncxe5 Qxe5 21.Nxe5 Bxe2 22.Nxf7+ Rxf7 23.Bxf7 Nd6 24.Bd5 Rc8

 During analysis we had differing views. I was of the view that exchanging Rooks here would be better for White while he felt that my Rook was too active and had to go. Running the position with the engine proved that White was better off in view of the pawns which might be more menacing. The resulting moves led to a draw as the pawns did cost Black the win after some inaccuracies by both sides.

The takeaway from this?

It is always good to recognise one's weakness - here Black acknowledged that he played intuitively for most of the game. Since this game is on request to work on his weakness, why did he not force himself to examine the position deeply? My hunch is this : we tend to want the computer engine to find the moves for us and "remember" the approach rather than working it out on the board. Since this is a friendly game with no tournament impact, the review the engine would serve to teach us what went wrong. 

We should spend time examining the position and spend the time during critical moments to work out the plan for each position.  The review can reveal if our instincts are correct, even if the implementation of the plan may be flawed. Deciding on plans without deeply examining the position is akin to drawing a trump in a lottery. 

Studying games is where I believe one can hone the instincts of deriving at the right plan after paying close attention to the character of the position, not just by calculating alone.  

PS : The game ended with him on 15+ minutes and I on 3+ minutes.