Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

Ashley's Million-dollar chess tourney - but bring your own clocks


  • 11 hours ago · Quote · #1261

    TurboFish

    maskedbishop wrote:

    He's a troll and posts vulgar things. I reported him.

    For example?  Or this just a false accusation?

  • 11 hours ago · Quote · #1262

    johnmusacha

    Well, you do seem a bit high strung.

  • 11 hours ago · Quote · #1264

    maskedbishop

    >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

     


  • 11 hours ago · Quote · #1266

    rdecredico

    Fair enough  Smile

    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.  Money Mouth

     I hope you create deep and lasting memories for yourself of the one and only Millionaire Chess event held.  Wink

  • 10 hours ago · Quote · #1268

    rdecredico

    Chauncey Gardener would have been pessimistic about economic growth in the chess garden.


  • 10 hours ago · Quote · #1269

    pt22064

    rdecredico wrote:
    Petrosianic wrote:
     

    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.

     
     

    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.

  • 10 hours ago · Quote · #1270

    balente

    rdecredico wrote:
     


    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.

  • 10 hours ago · Quote · #1271

    rowsweep

    $1000 is a lot of money

    but i guess if you can win $1000000

    then it is worth it

  • 10 hours ago · Quote · #1272

    rdecredico

    balente wrote:
    rdecredico wrote:
     


    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.

    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.

  • 9 hours ago · Quote · #1273

    rdecredico

    pt22064 wrote:
    rdecredico wrote:
    Petrosianic wrote:
     

    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.

     
     

    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.

    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. 

  • 9 hours ago · Quote · #1274

    rowsweep

    i saw a whale on the discovery channel yesterday because this week is shark week.

  • 9 hours ago · Quote · #1275

    ashikuzzaman

    >> 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.


  • 8 hours ago · Quote · #1276

    maskedbishop

    >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.

  • 7 hours ago · Quote · #1277

    johnmusacha

    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.

  • 5 hours ago · Quote · #1278

    vultureway

    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:-)

  • 5 hours ago · Quote · #1279

    ashikuzzaman

    vultureway wrote:

    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 .... Cool


Back to Top

Post your reply: