Lets say three hours thought and conversations per move. We were sort of discussing it on the politics forum. I'm unqualified to have an opinion but I am guessing about 100. (Assuming no help from books or computers. Also lets specify that after the three hours of debate the 2300s pick the move via majority vote.)

Ummm, I do not think more than a few will make much of a difference. E.g. 5 (I'm picking this relatively randomly) 2300s doing this are likely not worse than 100 2300 doing this. Actually, it may be that they are better as I think there would be even worse "follow the leader" type stuff with a group of 100.

That being said, perhaps the 5 2300s > 1 2600. I really have no idea. YouKnowWho is likely the most qualified regular poster for this question although he is more like 2400 (not 2300).

I don't really think chess decision making works the way you may think it does.

For instance, I'm 2000 and to be a favorite vs. a 2300. Hmm, I'm not sure 5 of us would be favored, unless some of us are really stronger than 2000. I think 100 of us would be a huge clusterF and I'm not at all sure we'd play at > 2000 level strength.

3.

One to distract the TD in the bathroom, one to wear the earpiece, one to relay the moves.

I believe a 2600 would be a clear favorite against a bunch of average 2300s. It would be different if each of these 2300s specialized in just 1 thing, e.g. one of them would be an endgame specialist, the other one would calculate very well, etc. I imagine it's possible to master just one thing (e.g. calculation) to a 2600 level and still be a 2300 because of neglecting other areas of chess. But in reality a typical 2300 is worse than 2600 at everything. Not necessarily by 300 points, e.g. a 2300 player can play endgames at an IM/GM level, which might compensate for his 2100-level opening preparation or poor calculation. I think I would bet on the 2600 player. Fwiw I'm 2300+ (FIDE).

i asked some of the 2600s i teach and got various estimates. imo it depends. if the team of 2300's skills complement one another i can see it being competitive, and 3-5 being a good amount. also another factor is how well they get along and can focus. young prodigies will fight and fall asleep, so you want a more experienced team.

Something like this once had a practical test.

Kasparov versus the World

2100 FIDE here. I'd bet on the 2600 against any number of 2300s, and I suspect you'd run into diminishing returns once you got past about 5 players. In fact, I think I might bet on one 2300 vs a team of 20 2300s.

Yeah, this seems most likely. Although, the idea of picking many 2300s who are experts at specific things could be useful. E.g. you get a bunch of 2300s who are GM strength at certain openings and maybe one who is GM strength at endgames (might not be possible), then you have them train together so they don't step on each other's toes too much and they can all at least help blunder check so that their team shouldn't be blundering much.

Maybe they are on par with the 2600. They'd be impossible to prepare for which is likely some edge the 2600 GM is used to enjoying (being better able to prepare for opponents or having a wider repertoire/experience than a 2300 but in this case that wouldn't be the case).

All 2300s in the world combined shouldn't beat a 2600.

2300s have enough chess understanding to find good moves, the main difference between a 2300 and a 2600 is speed. So if you basically make it a correspondence game, the difference is largely eliminated. If it was one 2300 vs. one 2600 with 3 hours per move, the 2600 would still be a favourite due to his higher level of chess understanding, but it would be a difference of far less than 300 rating points, maybe 100 or so. 2 or 3 2300s working together synergistically could probably close the gap.

Compare it to a native speaker of a language and a foreigner who speaks it very well. The native speaker can write a grammatically and colloquially correct email without much effort. The foreigner's first draft will have more mistakes, but give him a few hours and it won't look much different from the native's.

I'm interested in what you're basing this on. This doesn't seem right at all to me.

No. I would expect a 2600 to be quite a bit stronger than a 2300 at correspondence chess. But, these are different things. Like comparing a classical time control to blitz or bullet. I'm sure there are some 2600 vs. 2300 classical time control comparisons where at blitz the 2300 may even be slightly better. But on average? No. No way in hell.

This would allow 2300 specialists more time to coordinate. But if it were a random 2 or 3 2300s I don't think they'd suddenly be better than the 2600 if they weren't already at a classical time control.

I'm not sure how this comparison is supposed to work. Are you overall trying to say a 2600 is simply more precise and exact than a 2300 who is sloppier or slower? That's some of the difference but their difference in strength (on average) is not going to just be in calculation - it will be across quite a few areas of knowledge and skills.

I guess what I'm saying is that there is a critical level, which I would put around 2300, that you can reach where you can basically find a good move in any situation given enough time.

The 2600 has more knowledge, which allows him to make decisions much more quickly and accurately under conditions of limited time.

To follow my analogy with a foreign language - the 2300 is like someone who knows the grammar and vocabulary to a high enough level to converse on pretty much any topic, but still has a distinct accent and maybe uses the wrong verb tense once in a while. The 2600 is a native speaker. The more time you give them, the less different the result is going to be.

It wouldn't apply to weaker players, who just don't have the basic "grammar" down. But 2300 is good enough to close the gap.

Ok, this is where I just don't agree but I certainly could be wrong. I think the 300 point gap between 2300 and 2600 is more than just calculation and/or tactical abilities. Yes, if you give more time to the weaker player it can close the gap but this is true even for 1300 vs. 1600 where my guess is that you'd say the 1600 player has more grammatical understanding on a fundamental level and therefore more time to the 1300 player isn't sufficient.

For instance, I just think there is quite a difference between YouKnowWho and a 2700 player and he can't really play on their level (on average) just given more time. There are ideas that he either simply won't see or be able to evaluate properly no matter how much time he has that a 2700 player is capable of seeing/understanding.

I would have thought that the main differences between IM and GM strength is that the latter has greater chess knowledge and better evaluation skills.

I wouldn't have assumed that there would be much difference in the accuracy or depth of raw calculations at that level, but maybe I'm mistaken about this.

This is a very interesting topic and I am glad it has been brought up. I think both Jack and Yugo are right (and wrong) to some extent.

I think Yugo is right in a sense that the knowledge gap exists, but he overvalues it a bit, and undervalues the speed. Jack, however, undervalues the knowledge gap.

Now beware - these percentages are basically coming just from my experience and estimation, and not some hard proof.

I would say that on a whole, I "know", in a sense that it does not take much time for me to think about it, about 60ish% of what an average 2700 knows. Of the remaining 40%, I would say about 30% I don't "know", but am able to figure out over the board (a very important factor, IMO, that neither of you two addressed directly), and only the remaining 10 or so percent are completely above my grasp, i.e. I would not figure it out despite given any amount of time (unless of course I improve as I am looking for it ). Out of the 30% that I don't "know", but can figure out, the majority consists of the opening stuff, i.e. I feel like this is where the biggest advantage of a GM lies over me.

The 30% that I don't know, but am able to figure out over the board, correlates exactly to what Jack is saying - since competitive games are played with a time limit, the fact that I have to spend a ton of time figuring out this 30% amounts to the largest part of the ELO rating gap. Crudely speaking, GM's don't need to spend time on that, therefore they have more "speed", therefore they are less likely to end up in time trouble vs me, therefore they win more often than not. If I would have an unlimited time to figure stuff out, I would say the ELO gap just based on difference in knowledge that is beyond my grasp, i.e. stuff that I cannot figure out at all, would consist of at most 100 ELO points.

I have three very recent examples of this, actually, even though my opponents weren't 2700, but all three were GMs, one above 2600, one just shy of it, and one 2530ish (but he won a tournament with massive performance, so I guess you could say that at least that tourney he was at least playing at that level). All three games were eerily similar. I knew less in the opening in all three games = I spent a lot of time having to figure it out = I figured it out for the most part, but was way behind on time = when approaching time trouble the evaluation was absolutely equal in all three games = I lost all three games in time trouble. So, I could hang with them "in chess" for sure, but could not hang with them "in speed".

So you could both say that I lost because of the knowledge gap (in these cases, mainly in the opening), and that I lost because of their speed (because I was able to "cover" the knowledge gap over the board, but had to spend time on it). So you are both kinda right

I would say it is a combination of all four, with an addition of speed (talked about in the post above).

Greater chess knowledge - yes, to an extent (but also important to note that the majority of it can be "covered" over the board, but takes time, therefore the addition of the "speed factor).

Better evaluation skills - yes, to an extent (but also important to note that this is very much influenced by the "speed" factor, i.e. in an unlimited time setting this would be only a very small strength, but becomes a big strength if the 2400 is approaching time trouble)

Accuracy of calculations - definitely yes, but also to an extent (again, very much influenced by the "speed" factor for the same reasons mentioned above)

Depth of raw calculations - also definitely yes, but also to an extent (again, very much influenced by the "speed" factor for the same reasons mentioned above)

Everyone's right and everyone's wrong, yay!

If we assume a game between a 2400 and 2600, with the FIDE time control of 40/90, G30; increment 30 sec.

At what accelerated time control for the 2600 would this become a fair fight?

G-60? G-30? Something even faster?

I am sorry for taking so long to respond. I was coming back to this question in my head for all this time, pondering, and still couldn't come up with a clean answer, because it just depends on so many things.

I guess in an absolute vacuum, given your conditions, I would say that G45 for the GM would be around an even fight.

HOWEVER, everything depends on the opening. If a GM is able to steer the opening to sort of a calmer, strategic position, then I would say G30 would be a fair fight, and at G45 he is a favorite. But if the 2400 is able to play an opening that results in a complex position that the 2400 has experience in handling, then I would say that G60 would be a fair fight (also depends on how much experience the GM has in those lines).

As an example, if I got to play some of the more complex Modern Tiger lines as black vs a 2600 GM and he had G30 while I had the time control you mentioned, I would honestly consider myself a big favorite (maybe naively). At G45 for GM I would consider myself a favorite still, and at G60 I'd consider myself a favorite if I knew he has no experience in those positions, and around even fight if he does have some.

I do appreciate you taking the time to respond, since as both a psychologist and a fair player (i.e. Class A--LOL) I'm very interested in learning how individuals process while they're playing.

To my unqualified eyes this seems like a reasonable estimate


Although I agree with this, if you are giving the IM the benefit of expertise over the GM in the chosen opening, you've kind of flipped their degrees of [relevant] chess knowledge, at least for this specific game.