Carlsen, Nakamura, Caruana, So vs Houdini
Sort:
The best players team up vs a computer? Has this been done? I doubt it would help much but maybe....
It's actually quite interesting question I would like to see it !
Say top 5 in the world with a classical rating or 2800+ vs one machine Stockfish 8 ! Time limit 5 to 1 , 1 hour Stockfish no increment, 5 hours top 5 players no increment.
I think at their level egos are at the highest! They won't agree on a move, and computer would still anihilate them
They usually agree on most moves when they discuss the games afterwards so I don't see that as a problem. If they manage to turn it into a strategic battle they might have a shot at saving a worse endgame...
Agreeing on moves might only be a problem in the opening. They also may not want to share their opening prep. I think it's a great idea but I don't think that 5 2700+ players can together play like a 3300+(top computer rating). Just like I don't think 5 1300 rated players can together play like a 2000 rated player.... I still would like to see what happens!
Apr 4, 2017
0
#8
"Too many cooks spoil the broth"
Teaming up would decrease the level of their play.
Apr 4, 2017
0
#9
Well, it should be correspondence - computer gets only 1 hour total thinking time, while humans get to make one move/24 hours or something, to make it more reasonable.
Apr 4, 2017
0
#10
There have been tandem tournaments where it's 2 players vs 2 players. The team of 2 alternate making moves on the board.
I haven't played like that, but I've played me + friend vs a stronger player and we were allowed to discuss strategy. It helps avoid some mistakes I guess, but mostly it's one player convinces the other. If you think about it there's no reason to think it somehow adds depth as if one player works for 10 moves and the 2nd player increases the depth to 20 moves and so on.
Apr 4, 2017
0
#11
Cherub_Enjel wrote:
Well, it should be correspondence - computer gets only 1 hour total thinking time, while humans get to make one move/24 hours or something, to make it more reasonable.
Correspondence would be a lot more interesting.
Apr 4, 2017
0
#12
Discussing strategy out loud makes it easier to see better and clearer than having to just think about it alone, silently in your head.
This is also why it is recommended to annotate your own game - you put your thought process on paper and become more aware of it - so you can improve upon it.
It's good to argue strategy, each player seeing the good points of his counterpart's strategy, and refuting the bad points. It will certainly improve things, having enough time to think together, discuss and reach decisions.
They can even decide that after the discussion, one player will have the right to decide in case of no agreement - and that for each such occasion, it will be a different player.
With all of this, still yes - five morons don't make a genius, and five geniuses don't make a Stockfish.
I like Cherub's proposed time control - maybe the humans have chances that way.
