How come rdecredo and kummetmerbo keeping their eyes closed on other parts of the articles and seeing on the one where its claimed that he is the first african-american GM (very truly and very credibly of course)? What about this (and there are more if you want to read again) -
Ashley and Englishman James Plaskett are the only twograndmasters to have made it to the studio stage of "Who Wants To Be A Millionaire?," each in his respective country.
Is making it on 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire' really that much of an accomplishment?
May be. Otherwise why its only 2 GMs who could ever do it so far? Anyway, as you put not much credit to it, lets go to the next one here?
Maurice has been a constant subject in national and international media appearing on countless programs, and in addition, has achieved worldwide fame in the chess world by serving as commentator in the Kasparov-Short and Kasparov-Deep Blue matches.
By the way, I will take a side track here for those who thought top class chess players didn't play in MC#1. Here is an article from GM Ivan Sokolov who put his money to the future of chess to 3 young guns - Wesley So, Anish Giri and Yu Yangyi. Guess what? Anish didn't play but Wesley was champion and Yu was 3rd in MC#1....
http://en.chessbase.com/post/interview-with-ivan-sokolov-1-2#discuss
>Many, if not all, of the great thinkers throughout history faced controversy and much resistance <
Great thinkers throughout history...now to include Maurice Ashley and Amy Lee?
My, we do take ourselves rather seriously on this board, don't we?
May be. Otherwise why its only 2 GMs who could ever do it so far?
You think there are a lot of grandmasters clamoring to be on 'Who Wants to Be a Millionaire"? We're talking about a tacky TV game show which features morons who use three lifelines trying to "answer how many moons does the Earth have?" and still get it wrong.
last year's tournament was pretty top heavy i seem to recall. already 8 GMs signed up...
and silly Danny is playing. whee... that is cool. my goal is to outperform that noob. actually he's awesome like most of the others in the open.
Hahaha... where to start with and where to end? 
Ok, let me try saving everyone some reads by not trying to prove waht you wrote rdecredo as incorrect and irrelevant. I believe it will be clear by explaining what I was pointing at in comments.
Someone claimed in this thread that GM Ashley's ONLY, I repeat ONLY, credibility is that he is the first African American GM in the world. So what I was trying to show is his other accomplishments through a series of questions and answers - one point at a time.
So my first point was the who wants to be a millionaire participant. Of course Dartha mentioned why its a big deal - I agreed. Then I put the second point was he is one of the best chess commentators in USA (in my opinion in the history of chess - but I didn't claim it and dont want to start a parallel arguement just on it- I will leave it to simple credits one at a time as long as the point is he is one of the best in USA). Try to now deny this. I like Yaseer Sierwaan too, but show someone other than him and we can take the argument upto a point where eitehr I will give up and go the 3rd point or simply you will agree and we will go to the 3rd point.
My idea was that in such way, one at a time, I will show you how "n" number of such small small qualities in one person is there in GM Ashley. I have alrealy lost the apetite with the references that you brought in your (rdecredo) comments which I didn't claim (at least not yet). For example -
>> You think this is a resume that qualifies someone to run a million dollar tournament?
>> What does being the first black GM have to do with anything having to do with this event? At all?
Where the hell I claimed that? In fact who else claimed it? Do you have any reference? If I didn't claim then why will I answer this? Please re-read the comments before you make a comment on someone else's comments!
>> ashikuzzaman: seriously you not helping his cause here and really only serving to show how pathetic and under qualified the man really is to be doing what he is doing.
Please leave it to my judgement. You live with your judgement. I am just trying to set out some facts/data. The interpretation of thsoe data may be different to different people. We can just agree to disagree on those interpretations.
"Then I put the second point was he is one of the best chess commentators in USA.."
Uh NO! Have you actually watched some of his commentary during blitz or pairs games? It is simply over-the-top and silly; he was attempting to do a sort of play-by-play with the excitement of a boxing match and it came across as just awful. There is a clip with him commenting on a game with Kasparov who was clearly annoyed at the whole proceeding. Give us Yasser any day of the week.
Due to the quoting being unclear I must ask: whom are you talking about?
The annoying play by play guy?
> In fact who else claimed it? Do you have any reference? <
Mr. Ashley himself claimed it, on the home page of Millionaire Chess. It's how he introduces himself, so one can presume he feels this is his principal qualification.
Maurice Ashley made history as the first African-American International Grandmaster.
Ms. Lee, on the other hand, of whom there's no evidence of ever showing any interest in organized chess up until about 18 months ago, emphasizes her derring-do:
Amy Lee exemplifies the expression “go big or go home.”
While both of those qualifications can be admirable, and a reasonable source of self-pride, they are only very loosely attached to the notion that one can run a well-conceived chess tournament.
Some will argue that they've already done that simply by having MC 1 occur. Others might point out that losing at least a half a million dollars to the American chess market is not a well-conceived project by any measure, even in the name of building a brand.
I'm frankly of the latter opinion. While I'm not yet ready to present an argument that MC is not just folly, but potentially destructive to amateur American chess...I could be getting there :)
"Due to the quoting being unclear I must ask: whom are you talking about?
The annoying play by play guy?"
This was in response to the post previous to mine that was saying Ashley was the best US commentator ever.
> In fact who else claimed it? Do you have any reference? <
Mr. Ashley himself claimed it, on the home page of Millionaire Chess. It's how he introduces himself, so one can presume he feels this is his principal qualification.
ABOUT MAURICE ASHLEYMaurice Ashley made history as the first African-American International Grandmaster.
.... and @maskedbishop, how is it even remotely relevant with Maurice qualifying to run a million dollar tournament or business? The excerpt you copied is just an introduction to Maurice. What does it has to do with "any" claim? Its just saying he is the first african american GM in history. That is a fact and has nothing to do with running a chess tournament or not! Again, can you tell it in plain English, please showing how this quote is related to claiming this means Maurice has the right to run a chess tournament? In fact, to run a chess tournament you need not be a GM. In other words, almost 99% of chess organizers are not GMs. So how is this relevant? Am I missing something obvious? Please explain.
>> And then you make claims about Ashley as a commentator and in the same sentence state you are not making claims.
@rdecredo - lets talk plain English. By the above sentence, do you mean GM Maurice Ashley is not a chess commentator? Answer in only "Yes" or "No" please.
"Due to the quoting being unclear I must ask: whom are you talking about?
The annoying play by play guy?"
This was in response to the post previous to mine that was saying Ashley was the best US commentator ever.
One reason why this is such a joke is that Ashely relies almost exclusively on engine for analysis.
He is nowhere near the same level of class, presentation, and analysis strength of Seirawan.
Its not even a matter of opinion. Its quantifiable.
You clearly didn't read my paragraph properly. I asked, tell me a name OTHER THAN GM Sierawan who is as good as Maurice as a chess commentator. I myself can give a few names to answer it but I wanted to know whom you consider as good chess commentator. Definitely, by that I dont claim Maurice is the 2nd best. Don't mis-interpret as that. By this, I mean, Maurice is "one of the best as a chess commentator in USA". Well, too bad that you or some others may disagree. But that's ok. What you did, is saying again about Sierawan. Come one, I already said, tell a name other than Sierawan - he is too good, we all know. But before you answer it, you need to first answer my question in the earlier thread - do you even consider Maurice as a chess commentator or not? Then only comes this second question.
@rdecredo,
>> Ashikuzzaman: you are mistating people's positions. You are not addressing the at issue head on. You are side stepping all relevant issues that have been raised or circumnavigating them or are just plain unable to understand.
I wont even ask you where I did mistate people's position as there are already too many questions I have piled up for you. I will simply again say - I disagree. But you also mentioned that I am side stepping the "issue at hand". Well, have't you, I, maskedbishop, Bulla, woton etc finished the longest chess discussion thread in chess.com arguing about the real issue at hand already? Or do you want me to give a few URLs to remond you again? I will save it for now unless you ask for those. What's the point in repeating? We know we are convinced in each of our positions. Only new readers or visitors who haven't gone through that thread fully, may find some of the logics presented in this thread as "new". None of these are new - all these we have already discussed, MUTIPLE TIMES.
So is it clear now why I am avoiding the repeatition and only commenting on the topics that are, at least to some extent, not covered already earlier? If that means side stepping to you - then just take it as that the main topic - I am completely in disagreement with you and maskedbishop. I hope that's not a problem? Or do I have to agree with you? If I remeber correctly, I have never asked you to agree with me!
Some of the quibbling here is getting pretty bitter....so a change of topic. I predicted earlier 200-300 entries for MC 2. I'll be the first to say I am going to be wrong. 131 entered now, on January 9. January 31 is not the deadline for the $880 fee, it's the first 500 who sign up, if I read correctly.
However, once the $1,000 fee kicks in, it's only good until March 31. This is where the entries are going to slow down to a crawl.
If they can get 500 entries by January 31, this may spur a sponsor and a lot more entries. however, getting those 500 initial entries costs $60,000, the amount 60 people would pay at $1,000 a pop. Interesting gamble on MC's part. Let's see how it pans out.
The only selling point of ashley is that he's the first African American GM
So much for racial equality
Disagree. I suggest you read through the below 2 links first and see if your opinion changes.
http://www.thechessdrum.net/drummajors/M_Ashley.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Ashley
from wiki
"African continent GMs do exist; but, according to the system of racial classification, I am the first Black GM in history...it matters, and doesn't matter, all at the same time."