I don’t see how it would be possible. Six billion “non chess players”? By definition, then, most of their proposed moves would be illegal, bordering on random. How could they even vote on which move they liked better than others if they don’t even understand the fundamentals of the game?

If they weren’t playing such a structured game, then they’d have a chance to beat an expert.

Let’s propose instead “Could six billion people make a better guess on US foreign policy outcomes than the US President?” ... and almost unquestionably, I think, they could. Notice the wording. The US President can have absolute authority over the foreign policy decisions he makes, but the rest of the world will have a better idea of the results. The game isn’t so rigged; anyone can guess at nearly any outcome, and outcomes are not necessarily straight-line functions of the moves made, either, as they are in chess.

Email Mark Burnett, this sounds like a new reality show that would be a hit!!!

I should clarify, by non chess players, I mean non experts. For example myself, I know the rules of chess, I have an ELO of about 1200, but I’m not a good player.

Maybe.
But then again, if 6 billion chimps voted on which letter to type next, I doubt they would produce even one paragraph of Shakespeare.

6 billion people that see four moves ahead will be beaten by the person who sees five moves ahead. Real life situations which are infinitely more complex may be different.

Yes I think it is possible. With the more people there would be more insight on things and less likely mistakes to happen.

The mob would turn on itself and fight about how to proceed,then punt, much like a democracy.

I predict a draw.

Fascinating concept. Thanks for sharing that.

I’m seeing so many philosophical connections to the Zombie craze now more than ever… this idea that sheer numbers driven towards a specific goal can overcome the most brilliant genius planning.

The question is… Is overcoming equal to outsmarting?

And, if so… is that overcoming an entirely different form of intelligence? One which humans have not the intelligence to actually associate with.

Thanks for giving me so much to think about with this thread.

Let’s simplify the thought experiment:

Could 100 International Masters beat one Super-Grandmaster using a voting system?

My answer here is no, because chess isn’t a case where crowd-intelligence matters, like estimating the weight of a bull, see

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wisdom_of_Crowds

This was attempted with the highest rated chess player to ever live, Garry Kasparov (2852 I believe), but the World Team represented about 50,000 inferior chess players. Some of those players on the World Team consisted of a few grand masters too. Kasparov won, but this is a good question actually. Mob intelligece may work better with a game like Go, but I’m highly doubtful about this concerning a game like chess.

I see examples of mob intelligence in my line of work as an industrial technician. Sometimes the more people you would have attempting to troubleshoot a complicated electrical problem would help to find and correct the problem faster. Over the years though I’d noticed that the more experienced I’d became, the more I could blow away entire groups of people with just superior technique. Whether the concept of mob intelligence has any truth to it or not, it certainly seems effective only relative to the experience of the group and the individual being considered here.

I think fluther is such a site, but instead of mob intelligence we call it crowd sourcing. I think it is like the old star trek episode in which Captain kirk takes a serum to gain psychic powers against a tyrant. The strongest one is the only one that matters, and groups can’t gang up on the more powerful individual’s. So it is a case by case if crowd sourcing is better than having one super smart person.