9632 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
He's a troll and posts vulgar things. I reported him.
For example? Or this just a false accusation?
Well, you do seem a bit high strung.
business losses are fairly normal for a start-up in the short term although the losses the MC founder(s) may take could have been avoided somewhat. but it's easier to be an armchair general. and i respect the efforts by amy lee and maurice ashley and co. to make their initiatives into a reality.
This is really a bad analogy to other start-ups and has been debunked several times in this very thread.Business losses are ok when the money has been spent on assets such as real estate, infrastructure, and equipment.All these things can be then resold because they have actualy value.There is nothin that this MC CHess has onveted in that is an actual asset. Ventures such as this cannot afford to operate at a huge loss because the money is LOST, not invested.With every subsequent post you make it becomes all too clear that your economic understanding of the world and business is far below your chess understanding.
what analogy did i make? yes, you know your tangible assets, very good. but MC is not in the business of tangible assets. neither is Continental Chess and yet they do just fine, albeit i would agree that they use a more fiscally responsible business model. but customer service has enormous value too. banks do pretty well too, although government bailouts do not hurt, but i digress...
i will ignore your rhetoric but i will note that i have worked for a few start-up companies so i do have a few insights and fortunately those companies are doing very well indeed, thank you.
>people that really want chess to grow and expand...would be working with pre-exisiting situations.<
Yeah, I don't understand the idea that there is this silent, untapped market of deep-pocket chess players who want more out of life than the *admitted horrors* of a Goichberg Open.
Chess as a product in this country is maxed out. USCF memberships (again, the ONLY metric worth discussing) have been flat for a decade. The ICC, Chess.com, and a very small group of others are established and are not going to grow anymore. These new players just ain't there.
*scholastic brats never resigning and crying when they lose*the men's bathroom after the first round*tournament directors wandering around in garish t-shirts*no free wireless*hundreds of people crammed around a postings board.*the same book seller, every time
Of course, anyone that thinks they are happy is.But, the underlying objective and quantitative fiscal reality is that the event is a bad play financially.
ok, these are 3 very interesting statements which i can both agree and disagree with. the reality the choice of whether to play in an event or hold an event completely depends on the player's and organizer's interests. it's definitely in my financial interests to prefer MC over the Philadelphia Open and the World Open. it would be interesting to compare costs/payout of the National Open and the US Open compared to MC. although i may spend more money on MC than i would have on other tournaments, financially it may be the best play relative to many other major tournaments in the US. i have done some of the math and the numbers have been discussed. obviously it is not easy to place in the money in the open section, then again, in major tournaments it never is as GMs are pretty good at chess, obviously with 40 other players competing for the U2350 prizes, and ~105 other players competing for the 50 other prizes, the odds are not in my favor. but they are more in my favor compared to most other big tournaments.
Fair enough Especially as I cannot (and won't) address people's personal finances.I wish you well in the tournament. May you be one of the fortunate ones come its end. I hope you create deep and lasting memories for yourself of the one and only Millionaire Chess event held.
USCF memberships (again, the ONLY metric worth discussing) have been flat for a decade. The ICC, Chess.com, and a very small group of others are established and are not going to grow anymore. These new players just ain't there.
well yeah u do see those things at goichberg tournaments from time to time.
USCF memberships, It's a good metric, although i know a lot of US chess players who do not play USCF rated events but maintain at least a casual interest in chess. somebody actually has a complilation of metrics for internet chess sites, IDK if they still maintain it but i know some data can be found. anyway, i think ICC and chesscube are going down, the latter a lot, FICS has certainly gone down a lot, chess.com is going up. chess24 is going up (the olympiad coverage certainly helped them a lot). lichess is going up quite a lot. and there are other interesting sites too, velocity chess, infinity chess, some chess tactic servers, etc. the big three are still ICC, playchess, chess.com AFAIK. amazed that chess24 has increased the number of users that use their playzone so quickly, a little bit of self-promotion and quality can go a long way.
Chauncey Gardener would have been pessimistic about economic growth in the chess garden.
Actually, spending money on long-lived assets does not result in losses since the assets would not be expensed in the year purchased. Rather they would be amortized over the life of the asset or the asset would be kept on the balance sheet at its purchase price unless some impairment to the asset can be shown. For example, purchases of real estate would be kept on the books at the acquisition cost until sold.
Companies that are loss-making have a negative P&L statement, which means that current expenses exceed revenue. This is quite common for many tech or life sciences start-ups, which spend a lot of money on R&D during the initial life of the company. In many cases, they do not have positive EBITDA for the first 15 to 20 years.
Of course, one could argue that the "expenses" are really investments in intellectual property and intangible assets, whereas in contrast, the expenses of running a tournament arguably do not generate any IP. The counter-argument would be that there is IP in the form of branding/trademarks and intangible assets in the form of the goodwill generated. Arguably, if the tournament is a success (from a PR perspective) -- even if it loses money, this could lead to more people registering for future events, guaranteeing that the tournament organizers will make money on future tournaments.
Business losses are ok when the money has been spent on assets such as real estate, infrastructure, and equipment.All these things can be then resold because they have actualy value.There is nothin that this MC CHess has onveted in that is an actual asset. Ventures such as this cannot afford to operate at a huge loss because the money is LOST, not invested.With every subsequent post you make it becomes all too clear that your economic understanding of the world and business is far below your chess understanding.
Dumbshit, if you had any of business or economic understanding you would be in the business and making money, and not some jealous old loser counting other peoples money on a chess forum.
$1000 is a lot of money
but i guess if you can win $1000000
then it is worth it
Dude, no matter how many times you ask, and no matter how flattering you continue to be, I'm not interestied in you as a lover.
Comparing this effort to an actual start up that has assets and capital and a viable business plan is a joke, and an unffunny one at that.A bank would never lend one penny to this business plan and this is why Ashley had to find a whale. People that think there is room for serious economic growth in chess are a unique combination of insane and ignorant.
i saw a whale on the discovery channel yesterday because this week is shark week.
>> The counter-argument would be that there is IP in the form of branding/trademarks and intangible assets in the form of the goodwill generated. Arguably, if the tournament is a success (from a PR perspective) -- even if it loses money, this could lead to more people registering for future events, guaranteeing that the tournament organizers will make money on future tournaments.
Thank you @pt22064. This is what MC team have put in different wordings in their articles.
>Arguably, if the tournament is a success (from a PR perspective) -- even if it loses money,<
We are back to my scenario of the organizers doing a nude tango if Ben Affleck registers. This one is not about chess, it's all about image. Which is why it's destined to fail, because never the twain shall meet. Nor should it.
Image is fine, but this is chess. So going on image only will be an unmitigated disaster.
This isn't freaking the Tangiers and Lefty Rosenthal of Casino...
Or even freaking Debbie Reynolds playing some Shriners Convention on the strip in 1971.
Well, after all, as a world wide trend, chess these days is decreasing or stagnating rather than flourishing.
So, ... if someone is coming up with a fresh idea... why would I as a chessplayer want to to talk that down.
What is the agenda behind masked john rdecredico.
In the case of rdecredico I think I can guess he is running a competitive event in the west sahara which of course is a good enough reason to attack MC:-)
For redecredo, he is simply a core i-dont-want-change guy. And he wants to win the debate no matter what it takes. He is enjoying the time now when MC as venture is still far from promising. But over time, it it succeeds he will enjoy bashing it less and less and completely phase away at some point in time.
For maskedbishop, its more of a moral or ethical question. If the change passes his moral, he will be okay with the change and not otherwise. It doesn't matter MC succeeds or fails, he will remain consistent on what he pointed out - "chess does not need MC kind of thing".
For johnmusacha, I am not sure what he wants. He is mainly enjoying the time but doesn't look like he hates the idea of MC. He will probably get converted as MC makes progress. Otherwise probably we all will get converted in his side! hahahaha ....
Trysts is gone?! :(
by tkbunny 9 minutes ago
Ridiculous new "anti-cheating" rule for the World Open.
by blueemu 11 minutes ago
My YouTube channel
by InfiniteFlash 11 minutes ago
by tkbunny 17 minutes ago
This guy thinks I am cheating
by blueemu 20 minutes ago
by blueemu 24 minutes ago
# of rated players worldwide ?
by hicetnunc 30 minutes ago
Biggest contemporary players for openings given
by hicetnunc 45 minutes ago
racism in chess
by DrCheckevertim 51 minutes ago
King and pawn on the side against king
by blueemu 51 minutes ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2014 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!