Why are over-the-board time controls so long??

I’m the troll even though I’ve never been muted? Nice try. 

You must be joking? As in "lies, damned lies and statistics"? Statistics can be manipulated to mean almost anything.

The word for "cheat" is actually "cheat", not "cheater". Is this evidence that you've picked up the word "cheater" here, because it seems to be preferred here. Or is it common in normal, American speech? Just wondering, in view of your claim.

Why play a single game? Because the quality would be higher and it gives the opportunity for players to develop and test ideas. You're wrong on so many counts in that speech that it's comical. Of course accuracy matters to those interested in it. Perhaps it doesn't matter to you but perhaps also, neither does the accuracy of your arguments, provided you're making them continually.

In case you aren't aware of it, Coolout, your modus operandi is to decide on a proposition in your imagination. Then you make a claim, based on your imagined proposition. You make your claim in a combative tone, in order to ensure that the maximum number of people respond. Whatever they say, your represent it as "their imagination" or "their delusion". This is calculated to keep the pot boiling forever. It seems that "your opinion" or "what you find to be the case" is more aimed at keeping the thing going than at accuracy or fact. It's all, in fact, an extremely laudable endeavour and I'm quite impressed.

(But it doesn't have anything to do with reality.)

No one plays classical online because online is for casual play! Most people do not dedicate the time to playing longer time controls, especially when chess is not their job. 

If you have any intelligence at all, you'll know I'm right. If you're unintelligent, which may be the case, you wouldn't understand a proof. Either way, I don't need to prove it.

Yeah, watching TV and sitting on a couch playing classical shows. You think 30 minute is classical? Lol.

I think longer. They should try longer controls before shorter ones, since to make them shorter is to defeat the object of the WCC: and so they should only make them shorter if making them longer fails.

The original form of chess was very slow. That could be tried once more, before giving in and moving in a direction that sends out the wrong signals to beginners like yourself.

Originally the pace was far too slow and they just tried to bore each other into sleep. Since at the very least, it's debateable as to whether chess is a sport (I think it definitely isn't a sport) you're making an assumption when you argue that this format or that is the least/most sporting. It's clearly a game and if any of the leading players say it's a sport then either they're naïve or, more probably, there's a financial angle.

Firstly, I didn't follow that. (#299) Secondly, you're making another wrong assumption. This time it's my attitude to blitz, which has always been very positive. I was one of the few tournament players who trained between rounds and kept myself sharp with blitz chess. It can also be an excellent learning/experimental tool. That's because 5 minutes allows time to work out a well-played game, if you're thinking well, whereas 1 minute chess doesn't and things like 30 second chess are just a rather poor joke, which makes people who play them look like fools if they take it in any way seriously. That includes GMs.

Your wrong assumptions about what I think about blitz are very typical of people who believe the whole World's against them and they have to argue against everybody, whatever they say. It's really all in your mind!

Maybe that I play them both and so I know exactly how they compare and what the differences are?

Quality isn't entirely subjective, because it correlates positively with both accuracy and efficiency. There's a subjective element to it, of course.

I don't contradict myself, btw. Life is more complex than perhaps you realise.

Very interesting. That is, the detours which your mind seems to make are interesting. I'm also reminded of someone I used to know on Chess.com but that's beside the point. You seem cleverer than you try to portray yourself. You try to portray yourself as a bit dumb. Even so, you do make mistakes. I think they're caused by the belief that no-one but you understands reality and yet the impression you give is still one of confusion, because you so dearly want others to be wrong. I get the sense that you find it difficult to absorb information and apply it to situations as portrayed in your mind, because there's a sort of  .... how shall I put it .... a mental effect whereby your imagination actively prevents the acquisition of new understanding which is at odds with your beliefs .... your beliefs mainly being about how you think people think and react.

You probably need to pay more attention to what others write and more effort to understand them. This would cut across your self-image of understanding reality at first; but before too long, your self-image will readjust and allow you to accumulate more accurate data. I'm not entirely sure that you'll follow what I'm saying but there's a fair chance because you're actually cleverer than the image of yourself which you project to others. Or at least, I get that impression.

I'm not insulting you at all. It's sad that you imagine I am. Sad for you. You have come here, in your own words and at your own admission, to troll. You have insulted everyone who has responded to you, at some point or other. In general, people haven't reported you because they see you have an issue of some kind and perhaps what's happening isn't your fault.

The fact that you're picking up on an offhand mention of vaguely remembering someone like you from Queens, rather than responding to the more relevant points, shows clearly that you are the one with the complex. Stop insulting other people and you won't imagine they're insulting you, because you'll have no reason to think they may be doing so.

You can like something and admit it is a lesser quality. For example, I like the G1 Transformers, but when it is compared with Star Wars: The Clone Wars, well…

You can say it as much as you like but there is no contradiction. I enjoy blitz very much. I enjoy the long game just as much. In the longer game, people have more time to think. Therefore they are able to plan better and they make less mistakes than in blitz. Since everyone makes more mistakes in blitz than when they have more time to think, the standard of slower chess is nearly always higher than blitz.

There is no contradiction and your belief that there is is symptomatic of your own confusion, which in turn is the result of your erroneous belief that you are cleverer and more accurate and honest than anyone else here. You can't afford to realise that, though, because that way lies despair and a complete breakdown. Therefore, you maintain the illusion.

The negative is in your mind. It comes from you. Perhaps one day you'll understand that and you'll feel better because then you'll have the power to remove it.

<<So now you call it a higher standard instead of higher quality.>>

The fact that you think there's a difference shows that you're mad.
Goodnight, it's getting late here and I have some work to do. Enjoy your evening.