While that’s a good idea, I’m not convinced your conclusion is correct. But maybe I’m just missing something. Why would they eventually arrive at a win, and not a draw?
There might be some complexity in a draw. You might need to get creative at that point. The question is, would he play himself to a draw, or to a win for 1 side.
It’s a common stage trick though. A single "master plays 11 games of chess at once. He’s actually just playing 1, against the weakest player. All the rest are paired off, and he just transfers their move across.
That sounds really cool as a concept, but doesn’t that require 1. An even distribution of black and white, and 2., doesn’t that guarantee a 50/50 winrate on the event?
Because if it’s a draw, they play again until it isn’t. Maybe there will be some dead ends and tracking back to take another branch but in the end the man can find a result that’s a win.
While that’s a good idea, I’m not convinced your conclusion is correct. But maybe I’m just missing something. Why would they eventually arrive at a win, and not a draw?
There might be some complexity in a draw. You might need to get creative at that point. The question is, would he play himself to a draw, or to a win for 1 side.
It’s a common stage trick though. A single "master plays 11 games of chess at once. He’s actually just playing 1, against the weakest player. All the rest are paired off, and he just transfers their move across.
That sounds really cool as a concept, but doesn’t that require 1. An even distribution of black and white, and 2., doesn’t that guarantee a 50/50 winrate on the event?
It does, though winning 7 out of 13 games of chess is still quite an achievement, particularly when the players are of a very high level.
Because if it’s a draw, they play again until it isn’t. Maybe there will be some dead ends and tracking back to take another branch but in the end the man can find a result that’s a win.