I wonder if anyone has tried to organize a large number of much weaker players to cooperatively beat a top player. Of course weaker players may not even see let alone agree on best moves if they use simple voting, but I think theoretically if the team uses some kind of clever distributed analysis protocol to try more possible moves in future positions, and look more moves ahead than an individual weak player can (much like how engines do it), it can compensate for individually slower tactical calculation and less accurate positional intuition.
I imagine the communication overhead will severely limit improvements no matter how many players team together, especially in faster formats, if they are only allowed to communicate in person with physical boards and pen/paper. If electronic communication and shared online chess boards are allowed, they will be more efficient, although it starts to feel like we are just building a chess engine. Let's assume these players understand the rules of the game and can follow directions accurately. Under ideal logistics circumstances and with the best protocol, how many of them would be needed to team together to have even chances against a player who's say 1000 Elo points above them, at least in some format? How about 2000 Elo?
PS: anyone interested in actually designing and testing such a protocol to see if together we can beat a top player?