I have found a great question on goodsreads. The author explained different approaches to the same dilemma between the Csestriim, as well as, people in vaniate.
The crucial variables, at least as far as I see it, are intellectual capacity, factual knowledge, and the nature of the dilemma. For instance, a simple, soluble dilemma (say, a math problem) would find the same answer from anyone inside the vaniate. Most dilemmas aren't so simple, however--hence the fact that the Csestriim can play stones. The game hasn't been solved--if it had, there would be no game, just a memorized series of optimal moves--and so the Csestriim take different approaches. Even a Csestriim with superior intellectual ability won't always win because there's not a single optimal play at any given move. Of course, real-life dilemmas (warfare, for instance, or politics) are even more complex, and so Csestriim can disagree. No two Csestriim have lived the same life, so no two will be bringing the same set of facts and experience to bear on the dilemma itself. While their lack of emotion obviates one potential form of disagreement, there are other reasons to disagree
