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

In England in the 1970s and 1980s weekend Swiss tournaments often had a first prize of several hundred pounds and quite decent amounts of money for the minor placings.  It was possible for a strong player to supplement the income from their job or business quite nicely by playing in a couple of tournaments each month.  There were a lot of tournaments too, so often players would travel from home and did not incur hotel costs.

When I shared first and second places in an Open tournament back in 1984 my prize money was 225 pounds.  To put that in perspective my weekly wage then was just 40 pounds.  Since then the cost of hotels, travel and tournament entry fees have risen enormously as inflation has taken its toll, but the prizes in many (most) tournaments are not much changed since the 1980s.  When I won another tournament in the early 2000;s my prize was ... 180 pounds (which was less than I was then earning in a couple of days).  The lucrative time that started in the 1970s was a result of the interest Bobby Fischer had brought about, which attracted a lot of sponsorship.  Much of that sponsorhip has disappeared.  In particular  local businesses used to regularly donate to the prize funds.  Few continue to do so. 

I understand.  It is  not like football or tennis (or even darts and snooker) which can be enjoyed by just about anyone spectating, whether they understand the game or not.  To enjoy watching a chess game you have to play yourself.  You have to be very strong to understand a modern grandmaster game.  I  ertinly don't understand very much of what is going on until it is explained to me. Even to understand a typical commentary on a GM game you have to be a much better than average player..

As has been said, these days you have to win one of the main prizes just to cover your expenses.  Only the very best players make a good living from tournament play, and not from the tournaments that the rest of us play in.  Most GMs and IMs, if they are chess professionals, must also have other chess-related income, forexample from  teaching and coaching, from writing books,  writing articles for the web and for magazines, running a blog or being employed as a commentator on high-level events.

"That again is a non sporting and non competitve way thinking though because how many blunders you make doesn't matter. "

Ther is nothing non-sporting about my point of view.

"You still must practice to make less blunders then your opponent.   That's something that doesn't change and that is chess. "

>> But with that statement I agree completely

"You sound like you would prefer no time control at all and prefer your oppenent to stall and troll for a test of patience.  "

>> Not at all.  I do not want to out-sit my opponents as some players used to do before chess clocks were introduced.  On the other hand I take no pleasure in winning a game because my opponent hangs a piece and I am somewhat miffed when my opponent realises his position is lost, starts to make random moves and wins because my flag drops when he still has two seconds left.

" lets face it,  old people can't think as fast as young people.  Just like all sports chess is another young mans game whether you want to admit it or not.  "

>> I absolutely agree.  Chess at the top is definitely a young person's game.  But at lower levels age matters less.  I was 2200 OTB thirty-odd years ago and now I am only 2000 (and currently about 1800 at 5-minute chess on chess.com ... but gradually learning to blunder less) which means that even at my advanced age I can still thrash the great majority of younger  players, most of the time, at any time limit!!  I prefer to play at slower time limits because the quality of chess is higher.  Pathetic compared to Magnus's level.  Even more pathetic when compared to AlphaZero.  But still not marred by the horrible kind of blunder that happens all too often under severe time pressure.  And, now and again, even an ordinary club player like me can play a game of real depth and beauty.  That matters more than scoring a lot of points in games that are, whn all is said and done, rubbish.  Compare football.  I'd rather my team win through beautiful attacking play than through the opposition scoring an own goal.  Or tennis.  I'd rather make someone run around the court and score with an unstoppable winner than have them make unforced error after unforced error.  

The trouble is that slower time limit games have to be played OTB.  Too many people cheat with engines in slow time limit games on-line.   It is much harder to use an engine when you have only a few minutes for the whole game.

In England in the 1970s and 1980s weekend Swiss tournaments often had a first prize of several hundred pounds and quite decent amounts of money for the minor placings.  It was possible for a strong player to supplement the income from their job or business quite nicely by playing in a couple of tournaments each month.  There were a lot of tournaments too, so often players would travel from home and did not incur hotel costs.

When I shared first and second places in an Open tournament back in 1984 my prize money was 225 pounds.  To put that in perspective my weekly wage then was just 40 pounds.  Since then the cost of hotels, travel and tournament entry fees have risen enormously as inflation has taken its toll, but the prizes in many (most) tournaments are not much changed since the 1980s.  When I won another tournament in the early 2000;s my prize was ... 180 pounds (which was less than I was then earning in a couple of days).  The lucrative time that started in the 1970s was a result of the interest Bobby Fischer had brought about, which attracted a lot of sponsorship.  Much of that sponsorhip has disappeared.  In particular  local businesses used to regularly donate to the prize funds.  Few continue to do so. 

I understand.  It is  not like football or tennis (or even darts and snooker) which can be enjoyed by jut about anyone spectating.  To enjoy watching a chess game you ahve to play yourself.  You have to be very strong to understand a modern grandmaster game, or even to understnd a commentary on on one.

As has been said, these days you have to win one of the main prizes just to cover your expenses.  Only the very best players make a good living from tournament play, and not from the tournaments that the rest of us play in.  Most GMs and IMs, if they are chess professionals, must also have other chess-related income, forexample from  teaching and coaching, from writing books,  writing articles for the web and for magazines, running a blog or being employed as a commentator on high-level events.

Actions speak louder then words.   The guy said he doesn't want play in another WCC cause it doesn't have meaning anymore.   But he wants to play in the world rapid and blitz.   All he plays is bullet online and seems to have lots of fun doing it.    People who say classical is "better" then blitz which is totally subjective,  do so for a false sense of superiority.   Most of the pro super gm's will tell you they prefer online chess where they mostly play speed chess.  Like Ding Liren said recently its more games meaning more chances and more competition.

Isn't it funny dude.   The World Chess Champion says the classical tournament no longer feels meaningful to him and he is eager to play in the world rapid and blitz tournament.    But ninjaswat still tells himself that classical is more meaningful.   The opposite of what Magnus literally said with his own words.    People tell themselves that all these super gm's only play bullet online because they don't have the time for anything else or to avoid cheaters.    But the truth is they simply prefer it!

That again is a non sporting and non competitve way thinking though because how many blunders you make doesn't matter. 

You ought to stop making what amounts to personal attacks. It is not a legitimate way to argue your point, if you have a point to argue, which is very doubtful. Sooner or later people will get fed up with it and start to report you, you know. They you could get muted. All you have to do is cut out the nonsense about how anything you disagree with is shameful and non-sporting. Then, you'll start to look a lot better and will be able to make points, without people thinking you only spout nonsense. Incidentally, you haven't told me which points you believe I've "conceded" to you/.

imo:

classical is a form of chess for people who want the most accurate chess possible, and want to play/watch that (correspondence, even more of this)

rapid/blitz is a form of chess for people who want more wins/losses but still want skill to be important (bullet is more time based than these two)

It simply is non sporting and non competitive.  If you think that amounts to a personal attack maybe because deep down you know it to be true about yourself as well.  What you should do is stop trying to deflect from the points made and stop conceding in a flamboyant concession. 

 Let me repeat the last point again,  if you look at a blitz game tell yourself it is lower "quality" because it has more blunders then classical.   Then you are not factoring in the competitiveness of two opponents playing against each other.  Because then you will see that it still takes practice and skill to make less blunders then your opponent to win consistently,  which is no different then classical.  In fact the skill gap is even wider as we see from online ratings and among the super GM's themselves.  Look how HIkaru Nakamura dominated teh SCC 4 years in a row. 

 And the guy literally admitted its a young mans game,   we came to and agreement,  I agreed with his last post, the conversation was nice.     And that bothered you so much here you are trying to cause controversy where there is none because you can't stand the fact you lost your argument to me a long time ago in this thread and feel personally attacked.   Get over it.  Think about the sport and not yourself.

If bullet was nothing but playing fast,  there would not be such a wide skill gap because of all the super gm's playing it and they would not be winning so consistently.    The numbers and statistics on these websites simply prove you wrong. >>

That's a decent argument, so thanks for that. I wouldn't say it proves me wrong, though. The superGMs you talk about have thousands of positional patterns embedded in their memories and that's why they win and that's how they win. They just play patterns they are familiar with and divert it into a different pattern and then maybe kill the pattern if they think they can get away with it. If everyone's just playing from memory according to their abilities, it's still down to how fast they can move the pieces. So your decent argument is actually insufficient. Don't forget, GMs are playing GMs and so on. It doesn't mean there's much skill involved, compared with speed.

If you agree with me then I don't know why you were even replying and trying to prove me wrong.   Define my implications.   I don't even know what you mean?   I believe I am repeating what most people believe including most pro players like Magnus,  most commentators and especially most online chess players.  The few trolls and FIDE wannabe's on the forum clinging to old traditions who like to argue with me are just a loud minority.