Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can't find the source now, but I remember reading a while ago that a team of go players is, perhaps contrary to intuition, not significantly better than their strongest individual alone. There's just no useful way to "pool" human thinking power and redistribute it to where it's needed the most – all the players will simultaneously consider the same branches. At best you reduce the risk of making a silly mistake, bu…
Random human beings simply voting fared pretty well in chess though: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kasparov_versus_the_World Of course, Go has way too many eligible possible moves for random people to vote on, but a large enough group of top pros might be able to do well just by voting.
Four to five expert chess players suggested moves for the world team. I feel that for any reasonable non-expert it comes down to "choose between these suggested moves" rather than "pick a move". It's also not really random human beings, since the selection of participants is self-selected and therefore much more likely to contain very good chess players.
This is mostly semantics, but anyone who doesn't read your link might get the wrong idea, so I felt like clarifying it a bit.