While I bow abjectly before the likes of Botvinnik and Kasparov, I think those who unquestioningly accept Botvinnik's assertion that the goal is "*perfection in the realm of analysis" and assume that he means both OTB and at home should be informed that several of the world's foremost analysts, C.S. Purdy, Jonathan Penrose, and Bent Larsen, were all prone to time-trouble in OTB play. It should be noted that Purdy and Penrose were both Correspondence Chess champions, which surely influenced their style of OTB analysis.
The simple fact is that time-management and analysis are mutual enemies in OTB. The best one can realistically hope for is speed and economy, which means being able to do a few tricks, including:
- Memorizing a position in the future at which several viable candidate moves must be considered (a so-called "Stepping-Stone" or "Stop Sign", depending on your preferred author), so that you can return to it instantly instead of having to retrace your steps from the position on the board
- Visualizing tactics in future positions as easily as you do on the actual board (this is why GM's close their eyes or stare at the ceiling; they are avoiding the distraction of the actual position on the board)
- Keeping track of which moves you have already considered for each future position, and what you thought of them (I call this "cataloging", but have never seen anyone name the process before)
- As far as possible, visiting each branch of analysis only once (Kotov's advice, in "Think Like a Grandmaster").
However, in a tournament game, you simply do not have the time required to analyze all positions this way. So you also need to learn when to use in-depth analysis, and when not to bother. There are multiple good references offering guidance on how to do this. I can recommend both "How to Choose a Chess Move", GM Andrew Soltis, Batsford Press, and "Your Best Move", Per Ostman, Everyman Publishing.
Finally, you need to be able to do effective and careful "pruning" of candidate moves, or figuring out which candidates merit further analysis, and which ones are a waste of time. The aforementioned texts also address this.
So, with all due respect, I put it to you that it is in fact detrimental to strive for perfection in OTB analysis. The best player will think fast and efficiently and only when needed, and will use advanced thinking techniques that are not themselves analysis to arrive at the best candidate available in the time he can afford to spend selecting it.
For Correspondence Chess, time limits are designed so that, barring external circumstances, it's almost impossible to spend too much time analyzing a move. The ICCF uses 10 moves / 50 days, and no more than 10 days for any move. Who among us would even be thinking straight after 9 days of analysis?? So, this is effectively unconstrained. CC masters almost never default on time (see the CC Olympiad and World Championship cross-tables, if you need proof).
As for home analysis of a completed game, take all the time you want. Is that your wife calling?