Seriously: have there ever been experimental variants opposing teams of players on the same game?

I have a complaint about how an unidentified lichess forum actor (moderator, with some extreme decision making impulses, perhaps).

my first take on bringing the legitimate question to the forum, was aborted, without any communication with me, i don't know how fast, only that i wrote the post 2 days. ago.

I suspect, diagonal reading technique, or poor exposure to text that does not use emoji punctuation for transmitting the tone underlying a given sentence.

i leave you with a taste, of why a some meta information was lost somewhere.

the link to the post, attempting to use absurdity as discussion device, right from the start.

lichess.org/forum/general-chess-discussion/how-many-humans-does-it-take-to-screw-a-light-bulb ?

i should have left some trace of my many associated questions, and initial hypotheses, instead of leaving only the irony, i did not want to put all my ideas at the start, to let fresh, hypotheses, from unrelated threads of life add to the pool of suggestions.

a rare exercise in self restraint from my part, actually pushing me to keep erring on the side of too much redundancy in fear of being misunderstood. The ease of cut and paste, when fatigue starts showing, up , and voila, i appear having just wanted to spam some unrelated comedy, in a chess forum. at the expense of the community.

or the person had a fuse already loose, before reading the post, and jumped at the opportunity to act out some unrelated issues

anybody else, here would read that, and agree that the thread should be canceled, less than two days, after 1 post?

or that a verification of intent should have been first attempted.... or that the person had a little need for bureaucratic demonstration of arbitrary power,
perhaps having his humor muscle completely numbed by the chore of forum moderation, that he resorts to automatic pilot reading. are the moderators being strained...

i hope that the mere thought of considering some measure of cooperative behavior in a well established tradition of exclusive competition is not a problem, i doubt, it. so far, the more i interact with other chess players, the more i think that curiosity is a common trait. but we are not one dimensional characters in an opinionated, TV series canvas...

guess who or what is making the derogatory joke of the title. the chess engine, average joe. as the human population, resigned to playing chess themed fast paced bullet flying video games. using bluffing tactics, or bullying opponents into self-defeating reflexes. they now ignore the scorn from chess engines, in the highs of adrenaline, that those near gambling with your virtual life video games bring on a near continuous basis. no time to wallow in nostalgia.

an invitation to see the absurdity.

did i trigger another arbitrary power demonstration. seeing the non literal aspect of the title now?

could we start honing skills that we were already using, but not well formalized, or fully tested empirically. we have other means now, even those automata, we can tune their parameters to measure team gain in chess ratings from various team pattern and debating methods. we can at least try and test, whether we can improve our non combinatorial postional gain estimation.

the challenges toward understanding the game of chess, may be of a different nature now. the word theory may start meaning more the probably true because it has been a consistent narrative across generations.

cooperative chess, consultation matches are examples of what i was imagining. the team chess is not cooperative at the single game level. so not applicable to the chess engine versus team game question.

i will do some internet research, to find out the extent of past experimentation, this thread may get closed from natural old age, when i come back. unless, some people are willing to throw in their opinions, however limited their experience with those approaches is.
mine is zero at the moment.

I would be interested to know the time control parameters, and how well teams fared against what classical engines, if that has been tried and documented with enough data, for statistical analyses.
but first, how were the rule of internal team interaction generated, and how many human debate protocol strategies have they used.

can the various ways to analyse the futur success probabilities of a given positions (those often termed as strategy, principles, positional analysis) be more effectively applied toward higher game wins in a team. is it an advantage to team up, with same style preferences, or a priori diverging theoretical biases. can team interaction, be generating more accurate assessment than any taken individually. is a team more resilient, or is there a cost to put three potentially diverging style together.

how does that scale up to team against classical engines. is there any advantage. can teams better compensate the human limited depth of variation exploration, by being more efficient at judging likelihood that the currently explored line will open a better quantity of opportunities outside of the human horizon of variants enumeration. have they tried to divide and conquer complementary move variants, to cover more, rather than filter out, a better evaluation of one human range of enumerated line variants.

i have a lot or reading with those concerns as topics to spot, ahead of me. anybody holding on possible information, or pointers that would make my search focused of the biases i just presented, are welcome to drop some paragraphs here.

il will try to put some interesting links that will have been most helpful to me, while the thread still editable.

What exactly are you trying to do?

@dboing Now I understand why the moderator closed it.

@AnExplosiveGuy are you another troll? gratuitous comment offering no new information, but clearly wanting to be hostile,
you could at least be more precise, and point to something that's related to the content. how do i know that you did not just see another opportunity to be annoying at another human being just because you could. without even a reason. having fun?

i think, it is a sickness, that has been plaguing the internet from the beginning. vandalism is the motive. do some hurting, here or there as long as you feel to power to annoy, you might feel more alive, is that it?. you wasted my sincere attempt to answer the other lazy question, that anybody can write, in any context, because of the lack of content. you could be randomly spamming these many threads with the same exact words, and might appear relevant.

go waste your generic one size fits all venom in front of some mirror.

the post above you may have been genuine, but the same generic conciseness, does not incite me to waste my effort of working on more explanation. at least he did not aim at a negative impact with minimal effort. just that i am now, suspicious of tweet like, information-less comments.

@Vertonghen what do you not understand, i will do that: if you give me something relevant showing sincerity, and i might try to work on something that would reciprocate your interest. i won't waste my energies or my nerve, on one liners. sorry, if am making an error about your intent. i don't have enough data to go out of my way. i need to start seeing the patterns, and change my default assumptions: now i will assume that generic tweets inside a discussion forum are probably just wasting my time.

if you consider yourself having been wrongly categorized, write another reply tomorrow, with more content so that i know where to start. your question is too vague at this point, is my self preserving reply.

Please simplify what you are trying to say. I have read your posts more than ten times but I still don’t get your point . Thanks.

@dboing I am not a troll It's just that your comments seem like they were copied and pasted from a random paragraph generator.

This thread is basically you trying to make out that you're really smart asking for help from other people, but when they come knocking, you just put them down for there inferior intellect or decision making. Then you wonder why you get this influx of comedic posts and no constructive comments suggesting things that you would like, is probably because if there was a variant just simply of a team against a team playing one game it would be to hard to control cheating and balancing of the games. For example how would make sure that in this format that everyone has an accurate rating, how would make sure if it is turn based (everyone goes in turns making moves) that almost every single pair is evenly matched and how would it play would it be turn based or is it basically like a majority vote to play the next move. You have basically attacked a couple strangers online because you haven't been specific and jumped to conclusions with out reading between the lines which should be easy for someone who use big words like you. But to leave this at rest I ask you this, How Many Humans Does It Take To Screw On A Light Bulb.

First of all, I want to stress that it is not my intention to insult or offend anybody who has written his/her opinion in this thread.

Maybe I didn't understand everything what was written here because of my poor English.

But as far as I understood the intention of @dboing , this guy simply wants to play a match "human team 1 vs. human team 2" or "human Team vs. engine".

Why not try it ? I propose starting with the variant : "human team vs. engine"

Simply start an new thread in the forum with this title. Here all people who are interested in participating in this game can make proposals about the correct move for the human team. Then all people can discuss for a certain time (1 day maybe) which move should be chosen. It will be interesting to see how this decision making process will work. Will there be some kind of democracy or will all people simply agree to the opinion of the strongest player ? Maybe it is good enough to simply count the votes for all proposed moves. The move, which gets the most counts, will be taken.

But this should be decided by dboing.

After getting some experience with this kind of matches, you can play games with "human team 1 vs human team 2".

Why talking about theory ? Simply get some practical experience !

There is a guy on YouTube, who also plays on Lichess, who already makes such an experiment. He plays games against his followers. The followers can make their proposal in the chat and the move with the most votes will be taken as the team move.

Regards
Bishop1964