What are the most realistic ways I could have better converted this game?

@tpr said in #10:

... 10 seconds per move should suffice to convert a winning position. ...
Is there any reason to believe that games will necessarily work out in the way that tpr thinks they "should"? Is a position necessarily winning after 30 moves of one side averaging 40 seconds per move and the other side averaging 30 seconds per move?
@tpr said in #10:
... 40 seconds per move is average. For a critical position you may take 80 seconds.
Will a person necessarily correctly judge what positions are critical?
@tpr said in #10:
Of course taking 40 seconds per move does not guarantee a quality move, but 20 seconds per move guarantees mistakes.
20 seconds per move does not leave a person with no time reserve after 30 moves.
@tpr said in #10:
... When two equal players play, the one who uses more time is more likely to reach a won position. ...
With perhaps a substantial probability of a drawn position? Or a position where one player has severe difficulty playing successfully at 10 seconds per move?
@tpr said in #10:
... If the opponent managed to keep the game even at 30 seconds/move against 40 seconds/move, then he is stronger. ...
How much stronger? What if the 30 second player has simply managed to avoid allowing the opponent an easy victory?
@tpr said in #10:
... The position will be simplified by move 30: trades made, pawns locked.
Is there a reason to take tpr as an authority on what happens in the games of others?
@tpr said in #10:
Moreover, the thoughts during moves 1-30 help to play correctly beyond move 30.
For all players equally? For all games equally?
If tpr wants to continue telling people to play 30 moves of a 15+10 game at 40 seconds per move, it should probably be in a discussion of that specific subject. Then, afterwards, interested people could be referred to that discussion.

"what positions are critical?"

• For starters: all captures and pawn moves because they are irreversible

"How much stronger."

• Less time per move, more mistakes.
  https://lichess.org/@/jk_182/blog/looking-at-the-quality-of-rapid-and-blitz-games/X7XQmLgl

@tpr said in #12:

"what positions are critical?"

• For starters: all captures and pawn moves because they are irreversible ...
  The question was: Will a person necessarily correctly judge what positions are critical?
  "... You don't have to answer. ..." - Laura Branigan
  @tpr said in #10:
  ... If the opponent managed to keep the game even at 30 seconds/move against 40 seconds/move, then he is stronger. ...
  @kindaspongey said in #11:
  ... How much stronger? What if the 30 second player has simply managed to avoid allowing the opponent an easy victory? ...
  @tpr said in #12:
  ... Less time per move, more mistakes.
  lichess.org/@/jk_182/blog/looking-at-the-quality-of-rapid-and-blitz-games/X7XQmLgl
  So, a specific number is not likely to appear here? Not even with a plus-or-minus something-or-other?

@kindaspongey said in #11:

Is there a reason to take tpr as an authority on what happens in the games of others?
@kindaspongey said in #11:
If tpr wants to continue telling people to play 30 moves of a 15+10 game at 40 seconds per move, it should probably be in a discussion of that specific subject. Then, afterwards, interested people could be referred to that discussion

It’s not about whether tpr is an “authority” or not, it’s about the fact that the advice being offered is rooted in chess principles. Chess players of all levels have relied on time management as a tool to increase their accuracy and avoid mistakes. The idea that tpr is giving advice only based on authority is misguided. This advice is based on common sense, and it's widely accepted in chess literature and by many strong players. tpr is offering sound advice that being more time on important moves leads to fewer mistakes, which leads to more accurate play.

White had 6 minutes on his clock at the end of this 15+10 game and black had even more time on his clock than he started with.
That explains who won and who lost.
White played as if it were 9+10 and black as if it were 0+10

@BabyPoltergeist said in #14:

... Chess players of all levels have relied on time management as a tool to increase their accuracy and avoid mistakes.
If chess players of all levels average 40 seconds per move for the first 30 moves of a 15+10 game, I have not heard about it.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #14:
The idea that tpr is giving advice only based on authority is misguided. This advice is based on common sense, and it's widely accepted in chess literature and by many strong players. ...
Everyone can look at the discussion and come to their own conclusion about common sense usage.
I am not aware of 15+10 time usage being widely discussed in chess literature. A lot of chess literature was written before 15+10 was a thing.
If an idea works for a strong player, will it necessarily work for a not-so-strong player?
@tpr said in #15:
White had 6 minutes on his clock at the end of this 15+10 game and black had even more time on his clock than he started with.
That explains who won and who lost.
White played as if it were 9+10 and black as if it were 0+10
For moves 1-38, Prakash_Karamala averaged ~9 seconds per move, and Jclouds512 averaged ~24 seconds per move. I certainly agree that Jclouds512's time usage was a lot better than that of Prakash_Karamala, but I don't think that it tells the whole story. After 37 Bd5, the machine apparently considered Prakash_Karamala to have a "2.07" advantage.

"Prakash_Karamala to have a "2.07" advantage"

• They both made mistake after mistake. They both played too fast.
  'The winner is the one who makes the next-to-last mistake.' - Tartakower

@tpr said in #17:

... They both made mistake after mistake. They both played too fast. ...
We can certainly agree that ~9 seconds per move was too fast, but it seems to me that other factors are probably worthy of note if the position was approximately level after 32 moves where one side had played about three times as fast as the other.
@tpr said (to Jclouds512) in #2:
... 19 Rd2? throws away your advantage. 19 Qc4 was the way to hold on to your advantage, ...
@kindaspongey said in #3:
... As far as I can tell, ~64 seconds were used to choose 19 Rd2 ...
It seems quite possible that rushing was a factor in the failure to play moves like 28 Qe2, 25 Bxe6, or 25 Rd7.
19 Rd2 (and 13 a3 instead of 13 Nd5) may not have been rush decisions, but they do look like they may have been the result of failures to consider aggressive options. ...

@kindaspongey said in #16:

Everyone can look at the discussion and come to their own conclusion about common sense usage.
I am not aware of 15+10 time usage being widely discussed in chess literature. A lot of chess literature was written before 15+10 was a thing.
It's obvious that more time spent thinking generally leads to better quality moves assuming a player uses the time in an efficient manner. Chess literature was written about blitz and rapid (usually 25 min) which advocate for spending most time in critical positions and less on easier ones.
If an idea works for a strong player, will it necessarily work for a not-so-strong player?
In the context of time management, I assume. Please clarify if otherwise. Are there any cases of players for whom good time management didn't result in no improvement whatsoever? Your philosophy of "don't generalize statements for improving players" does not work here since time management is good for all levels. This is just a universal truth.
@kindaspongey said in #16:
If chess players of all levels average 40 seconds per move for the first 30 moves of a 15+10 game, I have not heard about it.
tpr merely suggested the 40 seconds average, also I don't understand what point you're trying to imply here. The average time per move doesn't matter as long as a player has a sufficient amount of time remaining relative to the stage of the game and managed to play quality moves and calculate them out.@kindaspongey said in #18:
We can certainly agree that ~9 seconds per move was too fast, but it seems to me that other factors are probably worthy of note if the position was approximately level after 32 moves where one side had played about three times as fast as the other.
If both sides played too fast with little calculation resulting in several mistakes, wouldn't it result in an even or advantageous position for either side? What are those other factors that you refer?

@BabyPoltergeist said in #19:

... tpr merely suggested the 40 seconds average, ...
@BabyPoltergeist said in #19:
... It's obvious that more time spent thinking generally leads to better quality moves assuming a player uses the time in an efficient manner.
If one spends an average of 40 seconds per move for the first 30 moves of a 15+10 game, one will only have 10 second increments starting with move 31.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #19:
Chess literature was written about blitz and rapid (usually 25 min) which advocate for spending most time in critical positions and less on easier ones. ...
That does not seem to me to be the same as advocating that one average 40 seconds per move for the first 30 moves of a 15+10 game.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #19:
... Are there any cases of players for whom good time management didn't result in no improvement whatsoever? ... time management is good for all levels. This is just a universal truth. ...
I am not aware of any records of widespread trials of averaging 40 seconds per move for the first 30 moves of a 15+10 game. At https://lichess.org/forum/game-analysis/was-i-seeing-ghosts there is a discussion of a game where, for one player, the first 30 moves were played at an average of ~39 seconds per move.
@BabyPoltergeist said in #19:
... The average time per move doesn't matter as long as a player has a sufficient amount of time remaining relative to the stage of the game and managed to play quality moves and calculate them out. ...
I see no reason to believe that 10 second increments will be sufficient for players to find quality moves starting at move 31.

@kindaspongey said in #18:

... We can certainly agree that ~9 seconds per move was too fast, but it seems to me that other factors are probably worthy of note if the position was approximately level after 32 moves where one side had played about three times as fast as the other.
["... 19 Rd2? throws away your advantage. 19 Qc4 was the way to hold on to your advantage, ..." - tpr (to Jclouds512) in #2]
["... As far as I can tell, ~64 seconds were used to choose 19 Rd2 ...
It seems quite possible that rushing was a factor in the failure to play moves like 28 Qe2, 25 Bxe6, or 25 Rd7.
19 Rd2 (and 13 a3 instead of 13 Nd5) may not have been rush decisions, but they do look like they may have been the result of failures to consider aggressive options. ..." - kindaspongey in #3]
@BabyPoltergeist said in #19:
... If both sides played too fast with little calculation resulting in several mistakes, wouldn't it result in an even or advantageous position for either side?
What seems most likely after 32 moves by white (averaging ~25 seconds per move) and 31 moves by black (averaging ~8 seconds per move)?
@BabyPoltergeist said in #19:
What are those other factors that you refer?
See #18 for some indication.