I agree, the Masters will win, but the rest of us plebs have some very high rated players as well. You'll win, but it won't be easy. 
PoB 9/15: 3. 50 masters v. chess.com
Sort:
Sep 16, 2010
0
#2
I think we're gonna need odds to have a shot.
Unless those 2600+ non-masters get to help us...
If you are only IM's & GM's, and "the rest" get to keep NM Troff I would have no fear of losing.
Sep 16, 2010
0
#6
LOL!! You should take FM Kacparov as well David. I can only imagine the lineup of big guns that you'll have. Hammer too if he has the time.
Without any exchange of information allowed or made possible? No way the masters won't win, the usual vote chess blunders on the "rest of chess.com" side are going to lose the game quickly. See normal drive-by-vote behaviour in any of the vote chess games here on chess.com except for the groups with good enough discussion and no DBVs.
I don't see how the masters could lose. I don't think crowd sourcing works for chess. If "the rest of chess.com" holds an average rating of 1500, we would probably perform at a strength of about 1450.
Sep 16, 2010
0
#10
Well, I would say if there are any masters left over after the 50 slots are filled and those masters join the "rest of" team, then the rest of's would have a substantially better chance...but since that's unlikely to happen I say the masters would win...well, unless Gonnosuke joins the rest of's.
Are these topics from "Pardon Our Blunders" going to be a regular feature, cuz I think they are a great idea...I'm always wondering what is going on over at chess.com TV...
If it was vote for any move I think the masters would win. If the big team had elected leaders suggesting vs. the masters all voting without captains I think it might be even.
3 masters give move suggestions the other 47 vote (without consultation)
On the other side of the board the rest of chess.com just vote for whatever move they like
see how chaos reigns
Sep 16, 2010
0
#14
I take the masters. Note that this leaves out anybody with the title CM.
There absolutelly no way we could have hold it. We can not do anything in 2 mins. Masters would end up playing average chess.com guy. Bad idea IMO unless someone works out the way how to handle drive-by voters and if enough time would be left for suggestions. One needs more than 2 mins just to write a proper analysis with diagram
I guess the world would need maybe 5 minutes, and the masters 1. This could be fair.
Sep 17, 2010
0
#17
I am a bit lost on how this would be remotely competetive. "the rest of us" team would average out to an elo of about 1300-1400 vs a master team.. how is that going to be interesting?
I tried vote chess once, as it seemed like a very cool way to play a game- however, what really happens is you end up spending all your free time for chess explaining moves still well inside opening theory to players to lazy to look it up for themselves. What players strong enough to at least put up some opposition to a master team would want to do that? let alone try and explain it in less than 2min? Talk about frustrating...
pdela wrote:
do you really need 50 masters to beat us in a game, please....
Yeah...seems like one would be plenty.
Sep 17, 2010
0
#19
i'd go with the 50 masters for sure.
especially if there is any dialogue possible between them. the only chance we'd have is if they weren't allowed to discuss moves/plans with each other. even then, we'd still probably lose.
EDIT: maybe you could set a ratings cut-off to make it a little more challenging - such as chess.com players 1800+ sort of thing.
Topic 3 from yesterday's Pardon our Blunders on chess.com/tv:
In a vote chess match (about 2 min per move) between 50 masters and "the rest" of chess.com, who would prevail?
(Likely future experiment!!)
Danny and David, who will both join the masters' team, thought their team would win.