I'm sure we will each have our own opinions and perspectives on this. From my perspective, as indicated in my forum header, I don't think we need to be overly concerned with winning. Of course we should continue to search and analyze hard to find the best moves possible and winning will either result from that effort or not.

We have defeated GM's and CC World Champions and have never lost. I think that puts the burden on any future opponent to distinguish him or herself by becoming the first one to defeat us.

I don't see draws as a problem for us in view of our current record. If our opponents don't come here to win and just play conservatively that will just allow us to continue our undefeated record.

IMO, it's time to raise the bar. To keep this interesting if nothing else. And I'm ready to admit that OTB preconceptions may not be enough (e.g. regarding the openings).

But I don't think I agree with you that finding the best moves possible and that winning will either result from that effort or not. Sometimes the "best move" depends on what you're goal is; you may play one move if you're content with a draw and play a different move (which may not be objectively the best) if you're trying for a win at (nearly) all costs. And the amount of risk that you're willing to take depends on how adverse you are to losing. It's a hard question to answer.

And, of course, it usually takes two to tango. It will be very hard to beat a computer-assisted grandmaster playing White who is satisfied with a draw regardless of what we do. And I'm not advocating that we play recklessly in an attempt to win at all costs; that sure seems like a good way to guarantee a loss. I'm just somewhat concerned that if the drawing pattern continues for many more games that both the present and future team members as well as potential opponents may lose interest in this type of game format if the outcome is pretty much a foregone conclusion.

Then again, there are draws and there are DRAWS. I think that this game shows that interest (as measured by the number of players that vote) increases if the draw is an exciting or even an interesting one (for which I think that this game qualifies). So, contrary to what I said earlier, maybe that's the secret to retaining popularity in these contests; play an interesting game regardless of the outcome.

Move / Members at time of vote / # that voted / % voted (***Draw vote - %***)

I personally agree with you that it's not possible to win a chess game by force. But I would think that win / draw / loss is still a reasonably valid measure of success since it does measure (somewhat) the extent to which we can create conditions where the probability that our opponent makes a mistake or inaccuracy increases, regardless of whether they are assisted by computers or not. Which is exactly what you're saying, we need to achieve situations where we have a clear advantage and our opponent has to defend very accurately to survive. But how would we have managed to get to the situation where we have a clear advantage? Maybe by incrementally accumulating small advantages, but I think that's what we've tried to do in the past and it hasn't been entirely successful.

Not that I object, but WT games do seem to have a greater than average percentage of violent draws by perpetual check.

I have to respectfully and completely disagree with this assessment. I think our record can only be classified as extremely successful. I'm not aware of any other chess playing entity or individual with an undefeated record, which includes wins against GM's and CC World Champions. It's pretty difficult to imagine a higher measure of success than our current record.

mouth n2 it verity on d8 in cheek knight I think too life

elucidate queen sacced h3 draw have acceeded point got little

left in butter yet has been a good fight going down mainline

nim route.

In try it erudite in enacting flavour whoosh air draw in

gamble might we edict the barber shear frenchi net e6 alimony

If someone had asked me for my opinion before the very first game against Arno Nickel about the World Team's chances I would have said "Not much", given the difficulties in organizing and herding this particular group of cats. And I think that was also chessgames.com's opinion, given the wording of the chessgames.com challenge: "Can a group of chess amateurs team up to beat a grandmaster?". If that challenge was being written today it might properly say "Can a grandmaster beat a group of chess amateurs playing as a team?"