Vote Chess - Chess.com vs. a Grandmaster!
Sort:
Sounds like a challenge to me and stop imagining Susan Polgar naked we need our blood in our brains to think not elsewhere lol.
erik, this is very interesting and very exciting. May I join-in to play as a chess.com team-member?
Wow! 
Even GMs blunder. So we can win. Be positive.
Sure, and Kobe Bryant could have a bad day and lose to you at one-on-one. Please...
How about a game between the GM and the chess.com players with ratings above 2000 ?
The comments of the group would be available to everyone ( but not for the GM). I think the game would be more entertaining and instructive, even though I would not be playing.
Edit: to clarify, everyone would be able to read the comments, but only >2000 players would be able to write.
it might turn out like the kasporov vs the world game
fischer wrote: Enlighter wrote:
I am not totally that would be the case. Most likely if the community discussed every move in a thread, some high level player would be able to convince everyone of the best move, which would result in everyone voting for it. But of course that's not always the case.
I think this should be very interesting, although the quantity of many chess players might not equal the quality of one chess player.
"Might not"? We're talking about a GM here, mind you. And I can guarantee you that the many (us) definitely does not equal a GM. Also, if everyone listened to the advice of a "high level player" before each move, then doesn't this defeat the whole purpose of the event? In other words, why not let your "high rated player" take on the GM by himself without having to bother justifying his moves to everyone else?
Every one makes mistakes, even strong players, even grandmasters, but not nearly as many which is the whole point. Anyway, I think if we hvae enough strong players working against a grandmaster, they might be able to all find the mistakes in each others' move suggestions. Each might see a different approach to each move, and I think because of this, enough people working together could probably, even very likely, find very good moves that might be good enough to beat a grandmaster. So because of this I feel it might be possible for us to work together to beat a grandmaster, but then again this is coming from someone who just got into chess a month ago. Also, I'm assuming we will have more than one strong player making all the suggestions, I really hope so.
The goal is to have numerous high rated players to play the GM. Imagine if Kasparov could consult Karpov on every move he would play. That force would be unbeatable. Hell, my first move would be to resign, it would just be rude to continue playing such a hopeless position.
Veto wrote:The goal is to have numerous high rated players to play the GM. Imagine if Kasparov could consult Karpov on every move he would play. That force would be unbeatable. Hell, my first move would be to resign, it would just be rude to continue playing such a hopeless position.
There are two problems:
1) There are no Kasparovs here
2) There are no Karpovs here
portnoy311 wrote:
Every one makes mistakes, even strong players, even grandmasters, but not nearly as many which is the whole point. Anyway, I think if we hvae enough strong players working against a grandmaster, they might be able to all find the mistakes in each others' move suggestions. Each might see a different approach to each move, and I think because of this, enough people working together could probably, even very likely, find very good moves that might be good enough to beat a grandmaster. So because of this I feel it might be possible for us to work together to beat a grandmaster, but then again this is coming from someone who just got into chess a month ago. Also, I'm assuming we will have more than one strong player making all the suggestions, I really hope so.
I fully understood what the point was, and the point was not valid in arguing that the Chess.com group could beat a GM. For example, Roger Federer makes mistakes in tennis matches, but does that mean that you would be able to take advantage of those mistakes and beat him? I doubt it (even though you may be a very good player yourself).
Furthermore, you make the same mistake that most newcomers to chess make when you imply that all it takes to beat a GM is to find a "good move" at various points of the game. Sorry, but it isn't quite that easy. GM's are GM's (and Chess.com'ers are not GM's) because they can come up with complex ideas that they are able to carry out over the board. To use an analogy, take your average (literate) guy on the street and compare him to a famous writer like Ernest Hemingway. Now the average guy may be able to put together a fine sentence, maybe even a fine paragraph, but he would certainly have an extremely difficult time coming up with ideas to write something much longer (a novel), let alone crafting those ideas in a coherent fashion in a way that a great novelist like Hemingway would. In short, the Chess.com player is the "average literate guy", the GM is Hemingway.
Very hard to beat a GM in corresponding chess
since gm's can make mistakes, that's why world championships have 6 games, to prove the first win isn't a fluke
Maybe if another GM points out a winning move, and put out a really good comment explaining that move that everyone reads, it might change the flow of the game. I'm sure it's happened before.
fischer wrote: Sure, and Kobe Bryant could have a bad day and lose to you at one-on-one. Please...
We don't have to worry about you playing anyone coward.
And if you don't play, you can't win dumb ass.
to be honest.... I'll be proud to join that team... BUT I prefer to let high-rated players to play that game, with respect. Remember GM deserves a Good Game (literally).
But I wonder there are a LOT of questions..... TIME PER MOVE??
of course we cant have a GM forced to move every 6 hours 
think by his side... moving, not voting
by our side... read, analyze, comment and Vote. its complex for us
It's me! loool...
loool...
Fotoman wrote:fischer wrote:Sure, and Kobe Bryant could have a bad day and lose to you at one-on-one. Please...
We don't have to worry about you playing anyone coward.
And if you don't play, you can't win dumb ass.
Which one of my students beat you, F-man? (I suggest anger management)
the voters might be able to win as long as EVERYONE discusses the moves BEFORE they vote. There are too many people (like me, most of the time) that just click to the game, think about it a little, and then realize why that move was bad AFTER they've already voted. People like me will be the biggest help to the GM
Feb 22, 2008
0
#40
fischer wrote: Veto wrote:The goal is to have numerous high rated players to play the GM. Imagine if Kasparov could consult Karpov on every move he would play. That force would be unbeatable. Hell, my first move would be to resign, it would just be rude to continue playing such a hopeless position.
There are two problems:
1) There are no Kasparovs here
2) There are no Karpovs here
But we do have a Fischer! 