Matters of Time

Which is worse? Wasting time, or being too slow in expending it?

This question popped into my mind while thinking about the notorious Rook-Yeager chess contest now being waged. Rook has been guilty of the first sin, while his opponent has been touched by the second violation of good play.


Meanwhile this is a question that applies to life as well, and even to money.

But maybe in chess and in life it isn't a question at all, because being too slow can be a form of wasting time. With money the distinction is much more clear cut. Wasting money and being slow to spend it usually are two very different things.

In this game, the slow side has the pull, and he is also a Pawn ahead. So, if chess parallels life at all -- and I think that often it does -- in this game the verdict would seem to be that, all other things being equal, wasting time, in this case in the form of repeatedly moving a piece in a stage of the game when it shouldn't have even been touched, is worse than being too slow, in this case sticking too close to a plan that may be on the ponderous side, when a quick, sharp thrust might have led to a favorable decision easier and quicker. But all other things weren't equal, and the wastage of moves exceeded the degree of being too deliberate, plus there was at least one case of moving the right man to exactly the wrong square.

Personally, I tend to look more favorably on being slow than I do on wasting time, though there are some who would insist that in my time I have done colossal amounts of both. But I have noticed that wastage usually involves being too quick to do something, when a little more consideration of the consequences would've been all for the better.