

Kasparov versus the World - michael_nielsen
http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/?p=267

======
cglee
Quite an interesting read, but I think the reasoning is off because the author
is comparing two types of games - one played face to face and one played
online. As a chess amateur and someone who has played many tournaments both
live and online, I can say that online play quality is far superior simply
because people can consult chess engines and books and move the pieces about
without having to load all the permutations in one's mind.

Just because Kasparov could have beaten Krush face to face easily doesn't mean
Krush couldn't have put up an equally impressive battle if they were playing
online.

Therefore, the surprising resistance put up by the World Team could have been
due to the format (online) rather than collective teamwork.

~~~
michael_nielsen
Kasparov later wrote a book about the event, and states in the book that he
expected to win the game relatively easily.

In particular, he had a number of significant advantages that make the game
quite different from an ordinary online game, and which make the world team's
performance more impressive:

(1) he could see the world team "thinking", as they discussed in public their
possible options, an advantage he exploited extensively; and

(2) he expected that the world team would be unable to form a coherent
strategy, but rather would be pulled in multiple directions.

