we win 

glad to hear that, andthenpatterns!

Turned out to be a pretty even game I thought, and I really enjoyed watching the IMs thinking their moves through - very educative. 

well yeah, we are definitely interested in tinkering with the format.

I think correspondence GMs would take offense at the idea that they are doing nothing more then running an engine.  I could be wrong, but my understanding is that a lot of the play at that level is about finding positions that are dynamic and which the computers are likely to misevaluate.  Perhaps that is not the case though.

We'll see tomorrow.  If you crush us, perhaps you could tinker with the format.  Then again, maybe "getting crushed" and "being entertained" are not mutually exclusive.  :)

i bet that tomorrow's match will be more interesting than a long draw between 3000 chess engines and one chess engine. but everyone has different tastes. i expect we will have a very entertaining event for thousands of people tomorrow.

Adding more players to a team only helps if the time controls are very long.  Under those conditions, it's conceivable that an extremely well organized team can dole out research assignments to organize an enormous calculating machine and defeat even a GM player.  The main problem here is that modern day AI is so strong that it is almost inevitable that players will cheat.

To avoid this cheating, the natural reaction is to shorten the time control.  The problem is that the world cannot possibly get organized in this amount of time.  So rather then a massive distributed calculation, you get a thousand individual crappy calculations, each of which is vastly inferior to the IM opposition.  The team can expect to play at about the average playing strength of any individual member, possibly even worse since the moves will tend to lack any coherent plan move to move.

Two IMs doing a slightly distributed calculation >>> a million patzers doing individual calculations.

If you want an interesting match, you need to set long time controls, get a correspondence GM involved, and allow computers.  Now you're talking about a fascinating game of chess!  Will the world get organized?  Is the massive distribution of the world better then the intuition of the correspondence GM about what positions the computer misunderstands?  I have no idea who wins that one, although the smart money is probably on draw.

Danny and David crush the world in this one.  You would be hard-pressed to create conditions that favored them more.  It's just enough time to let them do a nice calculation and discuss, while allowing the world almost no hope of getting organized and voting in a unified way.

I've played in a few team v master(s) games, and based on experience, I'm guessing the populous will lose.

I think it will be fun, and that's the most important thing. Two of my favorite contributors to this site, so I'm looking forward to it. 

Chess.com does not want to embarass titled players.  It will be either a win for Danny and David or a draw

This guys believes themself very good.

If there is enough people playing they have no chance.

They are a couple of stubs.

0.5-0.5 is my bet.

I don't know what the result will be but it certainly will be a lot of fun.

ofc they will beat whoever participates. sad that they need to consult each other though... kinda pathetic.

The problem is that any deep ideas will be hidden from the masses, so the large population will have their play level decreased simply by that fact. If one 1400 can't beat an IM, there's no reason to think a thousand trying to argue over moves can :)

we certainly won't be playing as well as Magnus. if the world plays as well as they did in that match, plus they have white, we might be in trouble. but i have no idea what to expect here. i haven't cast a vote in the poll yet!

We just have to work together. During Magnus Carlson Vs. The World there were a bunch of 800-900 players that were voting for terrible moves. Work together and we can WIN!!!!

Danny and David lose on time or disconnect. 

I think that two against many should win because two will agree on maneuvers easier.

some fish will probably make us lose, hehe

vote chess is way way way harder then even just 1 person vs him