Answers.Body: <p>These kind of games are called "consultation matches" and, although rare today, used to be much more common. The teams usually consisted of just two players each for the obvious reasons. Getting agreement between more and more players becomes more and more difficult.</p>
  
  <p>Between 1958 and 1964 the BBC had a weekly chess programme on the radio which featured several of these matches. The tapes of the programmes have long been overwritten with other programmes but some of the programmes were written up in a book by Terence Tiller called "Chess Treasury of the Air".</p>
  
  <p>Here are some of the results -</p>
  
  <p>Alexander &amp; Golombek 0 - 1 Clarke &amp; Penrose</p>
  
  <p>Bisguier &amp; Penrose 0 - 1 Golombek &amp; Gligoric</p>
  
  <p>Fischer &amp; Barden 0.5 - 0.5 Penrose &amp; Clarke (adjudicated by Euwe as they ran out of time - 8 hours!)</p>
  
  <p>Gligoric &amp; Penrose 0 - 1 Tal &amp; Golombek</p>
  
  <p>So, not many draws there, although the main aim was probably entertainment for the listening audience.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-01-08T18:10:42.943Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2015-01-08T18:10:42.943Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Answers.Body: <p>It mostly depends on time limit. If you give them opportunity to take a lot of time for thinking, it would be a draw. If you give both sides standard time control (2 hours for each side), the result would be unpredictable, because discussions between GMs may take a lot of time.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2015-03-20T09:20:19.937Z
Answers.Text: What makes you sure that a draw would be guaranteed, if the teams have a lot of time ?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Peter
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2013-12-29T12:56:19.960Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2013-12-29T12:56:19.960Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: user1460819
Body: <p>Imagine a situation where a team of top Grandmasters would face another team of top Grandmasters over a single chess board and play a series of games. Would the games always end in a draw? Would having a team instead of an individual player eliminate errors or would (other) errors inevitably arise?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2015-01-09T13:43:36.627Z
Comments.Text: Deep Blue was suppossedly being changed while facing off against Kasparov. Thats 1 GM vs at least two. Kasparov ended up losing the second match.
Comments.UserDisplayName: theeppright
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2013-12-27T14:38:34.550Z
Comments.Text: It's not an answer, but [Kasparov vs The World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_vs_the_world) might give you some ideas as to what can happen.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Jonathan Garber
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2014-01-12T09:53:20.180Z
Comments.Text: What I can say for sure is that the game will end in a draw unless one of the two sides wins.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Andrea Mori
Tags: <learning><analysis><software>
Title: What would happen if multiple GMs played on both sides of a chess match?
ThreadText: # What would happen if multiple GMs played on both sides of a chess match?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2013-12-27)
  
  Imagine a situation where a team of top Grandmasters would face another team of top Grandmasters over a single chess board and play a series of games. Would the games always end in a draw? Would having a team instead of an individual player eliminate errors or would (other) errors inevitably arise?
  
  **Tags:** learning, analysis, software
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: It's not an answer, but [Kasparov vs The World](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_vs_the_world) might give you some ideas as to what can happen.  
  > **username_3**: What I can say for sure is that the game will end in a draw unless one of the two sides wins.  
  > **username_1**: Deep Blue was suppossedly being changed while facing off against Kasparov. Thats 1 GM vs at least two. Kasparov ended up losing the second match.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_4 on 2015-01-08. Score: 1
  
  These kind of games are called "consultation matches" and, although rare today, used to be much more common. The teams usually consisted of just two players each for the obvious reasons. Getting agreement between more and more players becomes more and more difficult.
  
  Between 1958 and 1964 the BBC had a weekly chess programme on the radio which featured several of these matches. The tapes of the programmes have long been overwritten with other programmes but some of the programmes were written up in a book by Terence Tiller called "Chess Treasury of the Air".
  
  Here are some of the results -
  
  Alexander & Golombek 0 - 1 Clarke & Penrose
  
  Bisguier & Penrose 0 - 1 Golombek & Gligoric
  
  Fischer & Barden 0.5 - 0.5 Penrose & Clarke (adjudicated by Euwe as they ran out of time - 8 hours!)
  
  Gligoric & Penrose 0 - 1 Tal & Golombek
  
  So, not many draws there, although the main aim was probably entertainment for the listening audience.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_5 on 2013-12-29. Score: 0
  
  It mostly depends on time limit. If you give them opportunity to take a lot of time for thinking, it would be a draw. If you give both sides standard time control (2 hours for each side), the result would be unpredictable, because discussions between GMs may take a lot of time.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_6**: What makes you sure that a draw would be guaranteed, if the teams have a lot of time ?  
  
  ---
  
  