PoB 9/15: 3. 50 masters v. chess.com

could be a fun exhibition event as well.

to answer qixel's question, we want to post the topics from PoB each week, so long as either Danny or I finds the time to do it.

I think that 50 masters play worse than 1 master. More technically, I think that 50 masters in a vote chess game play worse than the average rating (mean or median, take your pick).

I'd imagine the disruption to any given plan's continuity would be the primary reason for this?

yeah, I also think chess.com play worse that the best of his players... so there is not really any advantage in the fact that we are plenty more players

i think a group of players voting definitely play higher than the average rating! (that's the premise for any such experiment)

Average rating, possibly, but even then I think it depends on the approach taken.  A large enough team with enough cavalier voters can easily have good ideas wiped out by drive-by voting.

It would be great if there was an ability for Vote Chess teams to split into two groups -- much as was done for the Carlen vs. the World match.  One nominating group (probably a much smaller set of your stronger candidates) and one voting group.  I really think that this would force discussion to take place before voting, and limit the impact of drive-bys.

It might also be fun to flip this on its head -- have the larger set of the weakest players nominating and the strongest players voting on those candidate moves.

I think the play is better than the average rating. It may even be better than highest rating. That's the experience I have from vote chess here, but I don't know how it would work out by quick vote chess.

higher than average sure, but worse that the best of its players

I disagree! In some vote chess I have played, e.g. I was the highest rated player with rating of 2000 and the opponent team was led by a 2300+, 2500+ player and yet we didn't lose

so taking into account in the no master team there is none as strong as a master it would be difficult to hold the game

yup, that means that the other team played worse that the best player they had ;)

well I don't think so because most teams have highest0rated player as teh leadr who says VOTE:xxx and everyone votes it

there it is, just one person playing

yes it happens by many teams, the top teams too

It is vote chess, but it is not democratic

With a discussion, yes it would be better than average. With no discussion, I think it would be worse.

even with no discussion i expect the vote to lead to better moves.

I just cant get into vote chess for obvious reasons......

I would think that the rest of chess.com would have a chance if there was a discussion, without a discussion the rest would fail.

In the Attack vs Counterattack - Vote Chess around 15% of people voted to hang our queen. 

The best way to find out is to try it! :)