Author: James Robertson
Date: 07:25:50 09/07/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 07, 1999 at 07:22:57, blass uri wrote: >On September 07, 1999 at 05:21:36, Lin Harper wrote: > >> Two (or twenty thousand and two) heads are not better than >> one, when it comes to playing chess. That's why chess professionals, >> don't have problems when playing groups in consultation. Kasparov >> would have known that the game would be either a draw or a win for >> him. > >I disagree. > >2 heads can be better than one if they know how to work together. > >Example: >If one player is better in the opening and middlegame stage and the other one is >better in the endgame then they can do better result then one of them if they >give the first one to play the opening and the second to play the endgame. > >Another example parallel crafty is better than not parallel crafty exactly >because of the fact that 4 heads are better than one when they know how to work >together. I don't think this is a good example. The communication between 4 humans is so slow that I do not believe four players analyzing a position for 3 minutes will think as deeply as 1 who has full concentration on the position. I like your other example, though. James > >Uri
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.