Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 62: Line 62:     
::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia.  As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time.  If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves.  Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)
 
::What I don't think has happened yet, Jim, is the type of process Andy's describing: determining the next move not by majority vote, but by the sort of group deliberation, collaboration, and consideration that routinely takes place here on Conservapedia.  As pointed out, time would be a factor in that, since such deliberation takes time.  If we remove the time factor, though, it could very well be that the best of the public would be able to collaborate to determine superior moves.  Certainly, it would be an intriguing experiment.  --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 22:19, 17 December 2009 (EST)
 +
 +
:::It occurs to me that the most interesting experiment might be one that just cut Kasparov out entirely-- Have a chess match between the mob and the Best of the Public.  Let one side's moves be determined by a majority vote and the other's by the Best of the Public.  Can there be any doubt who would win? [[User:DanielPulido|DanielPulido]] 22:25, 17 December 2009 (EST)
1,641

edits

Navigation menu