I think it is very hard to artificially forbid that: there isn’t a well-defined boundary between playing out a full game and a conversation like:
“that other advisor says playing Rd4 is bad because of Nxd4, but after Nxd4 you can play Qd6 and win”
“No, Qd6 doesn’t win, playing Bf7 breaks up the attack.”
One thing that might work, though, is to deny back-and-forth between advisors. If each advisor can send one recommendation, and maybe one further response to a question from A, but not have a free-form conversation, that would deny the ability to play out a game.
Yeah, that’s a bit of an issue. I think in real life you would have some back-and-forth ability between advisors, but the complexity and unknowns of the real world would create a qualitative difference between the conversation and an actual game—which chess doesn’t have. Maybe we can either limit back-and-forth like you suggested, or just have short enough time controls that there isn’t enough time for that to get too far.
I think it is very hard to artificially forbid that: there isn’t a well-defined boundary between playing out a full game and a conversation like:
“that other advisor says playing Rd4 is bad because of Nxd4, but after Nxd4 you can play Qd6 and win”
“No, Qd6 doesn’t win, playing Bf7 breaks up the attack.”
One thing that might work, though, is to deny back-and-forth between advisors. If each advisor can send one recommendation, and maybe one further response to a question from A, but not have a free-form conversation, that would deny the ability to play out a game.
Yeah, that’s a bit of an issue. I think in real life you would have some back-and-forth ability between advisors, but the complexity and unknowns of the real world would create a qualitative difference between the conversation and an actual game—which chess doesn’t have. Maybe we can either limit back-and-forth like you suggested, or just have short enough time controls that there isn’t enough time for that to get too far.