Is (Patriots) football like chess, or backgammon?

[zydecochris]

I was reading a thread about whether Gronk is more likely to be injured in the future, and Mike the Brit said the Gambler’s fallacy is to ascribe pattern in random events. This initiated a rare event: it got me thinking, so here is my first (and perhaps my only, given my lack of original thoughts) post originated, on the randomness of sports.

IMHO, many analyze football like chess, as entirely deterministic with no random elements. Good chess players write down their moves so they can analyze them later to figure out patterns and respond better next time. Many here analyze past football decisions and characterize them as mistakes (and I love reading these analyses).

On the other hand, backgammon is a game much different than chess, it combines strategy with a random element from dice rolls. The best players use probabilistic based strategies that will result in victory over poorer players when averaging over enough games. Nevertheless, those poor players can win one or two (or even more) games with enough lucky dice rolls over even an expert player.

IMHO, sporting games have this random element, not because of dice rolls, but because there are so many factors (both current and future) that are unknowable to us mere humans. For example, in baseball, for a given at bat, these unknown factors for that particular pitch would be the exact wind profile over ball trajectory, the exact pitcher throwing dynamics, the psychological state of the batter, and many, many, many more unknown factors. Thus the result of a given at bat is not knowable to us. However, one can characterize batting success in the aggregate (partly because some of those unknown factors average out), one knows that for a 300 hitter, the probability of a hit over many at bats is about 30%. Nevertheless, each at bat for that 300 hitter is still a throw of the dice (with a 30% hit probability), with a completely unknown outcome.

IMHO, football has many similar bounces of the ball that can go one way or another (such as a pass attempt) where each individual event can be thought of as a throw of the dice, with a success determined by averaging over many events. The result of any individual game is also a throw of the dice, although the odds are better with the superior team. How can success be measured? I would argue only in the aggregate of averaging over many games.

As an example, I have read many posts bemoaning the Patriot’s lack of Super Bowl success since 2004, and analyzing and/or explaining why that is. Again, these posts can make great reading, but when one considers the randomness of sport, it would seem to me that the best one can do is to get into the playoffs (and ideally the conference finals), and then roll the dice and hope that the ball bounces your way. Let’s look at how the Patriots have done overall since 2001. As far as appearing in the conference championship, in a vacuum each team would have 1/8 chance (12.5%) per year, and since 2001 (13 seasons) an average team would have 13/8 chance of being in the conference championship (averaging about one and a half appearances since 2001). In contrast, the Patriots have appeared in 8 conference championships, or about 5x what one would expect!! I am constantly blown away by what a remarkable feat of sustained football excellence that is. Of those 8 appearances, one would expect about 4/8 victories in a vacuum, in reality it was 5/8. For these five Super Bowl appearances, one would expect 2.5 victories, in reality it was 3, with some lucky bounces of the ball in the first three, and some extraordinarily unlucky bounces of the ball in the last two. In the aggregate, the Patriots have been remarkably successful, with the losses completely understandable when random bounces of the ball are factored in.

Similarly, during the football draft, even with the best scouting there are many unknowable current and future circumstances with each draft candidate (particularly with respect to how much a player will be injured in the future). It seems to me that each draft pick is a (very educated scouting-based) throw of the dice to some extent, and draft success can only really be quantified over many combined draft picks over several years. I’ll leave it to others (like the wonderful OTG) to analyze our draft success; it seems to me that it is difficult to compare Patriot drafts to other teams because the Patriots have been so successful for so long, and presumably it is more difficult for a rookie to make a Super Bowl contender than a weak team. However, it is difficult for me to consider Patriot drafts to be anything other than excellent over the aggregate, because the team has obviously remained very strong for the last 13 years (appearing in a remarkable 8 conference championships and 5 superbowls in that time).

So, I think (Patriot) football is like backgammon, employing strategy in the face of random events. Let’s just hope the ball bounces our way this season. Thoughts?

 

[Gwedd]

I would say that each individual game on the schedule is like a game of Acey-Deucey.

Having said that, Coach Belichick and the Front Office are playing Chess on the Supreme Galactic Master's level. What they are doing is looking not only at the years opponent's and potential post-season matchups, but also trends in the league, short-term and long term packages on the field, rules changes, athletic builds, everything. With THAT information they look to the potential draft picks available, and how best to tailor the coming year's team against potential threats on the field, etc.

So yeah. They're playing both games. At the same time.

 

[Mike the Brit]

I don't know much about poker (Patsfanken does!) but I've watched the Cincinnati Kid and there's a great line in it: "Poker is about making the wrong move at the right time." Football (it seems to me) is a lot like that.

Put it more complicatedly: football involves a strategic situation in which there's a set of expectations of what it's reasonable to do on which your opponent will base his reactions and prepare. There is an advantage to be gained by using those expectations against him and doing something different.

Of course, there are other things going on too -- athletic ability, execution, random luck. But that element of strategic concealment and unpredictability is a big part of what makes watching the Pats so absorbing for me.

 

[Brady_to_Moss]

I would say it's like landing that perfect 10 at the bar...need a plan of attack...but you need the right circumstances

 

[rochrist]

I was reading a thread about whether Gronk is more likely to be injured in the future, and Mike the Brit said the Gambler’s fallacy is to ascribe pattern in random events. This initiated a rare event: it got me thinking, so here is my first (and perhaps my only, given my lack of original thoughts) post originated, on the randomness of sports.

IMHO, many analyze football like chess, as entirely deterministic with no random elements. Good chess players write down their moves so they can analyze them later to figure out patterns and respond better next time. Many here analyze past football decisions and characterize them as mistakes (and I love reading these analyses).

On the other hand, backgammon is a game much different than chess, it combines strategy with a random element from dice rolls. The best players use probabilistic based strategies that will result in victory over poorer players when averaging over enough games. Nevertheless, those poor players can win one or two (or even more) games with enough lucky dice rolls over even an expert player.

IMHO, sporting games have this random element, not because of dice rolls, but because there are so many factors (both current and future) that are unknowable to us mere humans. For example, in baseball, for a given at bat, these unknown factors for that particular pitch would be the exact wind profile over ball trajectory, the exact pitcher throwing dynamics, the psychological state of the batter, and many, many, many more unknown factors. Thus the result of a given at bat is not knowable to us. However, one can characterize batting success in the aggregate (partly because some of those unknown factors average out), one knows that for a 300 hitter, the probability of a hit over many at bats is about 30%. Nevertheless, each at bat for that 300 hitter is still a throw of the dice (with a 30% hit probability), with a completely unknown outcome.

IMHO, football has many similar bounces of the ball that can go one way or another (such as a pass attempt) where each individual event can be thought of as a throw of the dice, with a success determined by averaging over many events. The result of any individual game is also a throw of the dice, although the odds are better with the superior team. How can success be measured? I would argue only in the aggregate of averaging over many games.

As an example, I have read many posts bemoaning the Patriot’s lack of Super Bowl success since 2004, and analyzing and/or explaining why that is. Again, these posts can make great reading, but when one considers the randomness of sport, it would seem to me that the best one can do is to get into the playoffs (and ideally the conference finals), and then roll the dice and hope that the ball bounces your way. Let’s look at how the Patriots have done overall since 2001. As far as appearing in the conference championship, in a vacuum each team would have 1/8 chance (12.5%) per year, and since 2001 (13 seasons) an average team would have 13/8 chance of being in the conference championship (averaging about one and a half appearances since 2001). In contrast, the Patriots have appeared in 8 conference championships, or about 5x what one would expect!! I am constantly blown away by what a remarkable feat of sustained football excellence that is. Of those 8 appearances, one would expect about 4/8 victories in a vacuum, in reality it was 5/8. For these five Super Bowl appearances, one would expect 2.5 victories, in reality it was 3, with some lucky bounces of the ball in the first three, and some extraordinarily unlucky bounces of the ball in the last two. In the aggregate, the Patriots have been remarkably successful, with the losses completely understandable when random bounces of the ball are factored in.

Similarly, during the football draft, even with the best scouting there are many unknowable current and future circumstances with each draft candidate (particularly with respect to how much a player will be injured in the future). It seems to me that each draft pick is a (very educated scouting-based) throw of the dice to some extent, and draft success can only really be quantified over many combined draft picks over several years. I’ll leave it to others (like the wonderful OTG) to analyze our draft success; it seems to me that it is difficult to compare Patriot drafts to other teams because the Patriots have been so successful for so long, and presumably it is more difficult for a rookie to make a Super Bowl contender than a weak team. However, it is difficult for me to consider Patriot drafts to be anything other than excellent over the aggregate, because the team has obviously remained very strong for the last 13 years (appearing in a remarkable 8 conference championships and 5 superbowls in that time).

So, I think (Patriot) football is like backgammon, employing strategy in the face of random events. Let’s just hope the ball bounces our way this season. Thoughts?

Neither. It's like the hex grid based wargames. Sort of. Strategy, tacticis, logistics with random elements thrown in to **** it all up.

 

[Fencer]

The Minimax Theorem for zero-sum games is highly relevant: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimax (My PhD thesis, by the way, was an unsolved, not-real-world special case of same.) It basically says that your best strategy is one in which any of the opponent's top two or more choices are equally good for him (and hence also equally bad for him, equally good for you, or equally bad for you).

• The intuitive reason that's true is that if there's one clearly best choice for your opponent, then you can improve your situation by making that choice worse for him (and hence better for you), at the cost of making his second-best choice (which he isn't going to make anyway, so what do you care?) a little worse for you.
• The obvious applications in football might be that you could shade a guy's positioning a little bit to make one kind of effort a little likelier to succeed at the cost of making another kind of effort a little worse.

The very special case of Colonel Blotto games may have considerable relevance to football, depending on what you think about the speed and accuracy of adjustments and read/react: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blotto_games

 

[Danger Zone]

Knowledge of football, I believe, is very much like chess. The game of football, however, is probably some crazy hybrid of chess, backgammon, blackjack and poker.

But why I personally love comparing football to chess are the very hierarchical tiers of knowledge in chess's rating system.

Quoted from: http://www.chess.com/article/view/ratings

Amateur rankings:

• 1200-1399 = 'D' player - usually a beginner;
• 1400-1599 = 'C' player - average club or tournament player, most people can achieve this level if they work at it;
• 1600 - 1799 = 'B' player - consistently above average;
• 1800-1999 = 'A' player - strong club player, takes the game far too seriously!, has lots of opening knowledge;
• 2000-2199 = 'Expert' - extremely strong, consistent player with the possibility of achieving Master rating, may have real talent;
• 2200-2399 = 'Master' - strongest amateur rank, hasn't quite got the hang of things yet but maybe one day he/she will wake up.

International professional players have two ranks:

• 2400-2499 = 'International Master' - weakest professional rank; strong, experienced international player, eats Masters for breakfast;
• 2500+ = 'Grandmaster' - eats IMs for breakfast, lunch and dinner, a star in the firmament of Caissa, a chess genius who thinks nothing of playing 20 and 30 board simuls against Experts and Masters and is disappointed if he/she doesn't win every game, capable of playing 10-20 blindfold games at the same time, and winning, etc. etc, in short, an all around bricks and mortar, brass bound b*st*rd of a player, but they do lose on occasion, sometimes to players with a much lower rating and computers are better than that these days.

I happen to have some experience with chess and give me about a month of playing every day and a little studying, I can quickly get myself up to around 1500 to 1600. From there, I will incrementally increase my rating the more seriously I take the game. And the fact that I am calling myself "an above average player" strongly indicates Im not exactly bragging here..

But I have played enough chess to know that while a player with an Expert chess ranking is someone that knows a heck of a lot more chess than me and is someone I absolutely could learn from, he is NOT someone that is actually capable of criticizing a Grandmasters game -at least with any validity.

Im not saying we dont all the right to criticize our NFL coaches or our chess GMs, but when I hear an Expert or below analyze a Grandmasters game and criticize them with words like: He's an idiot or yet another mistake and we're still paying for all of Belichick's mistakes, I have to roll my eyes and/or just as likely hit Reply and make a snarky response.

This kind of ranking paradigm is why I dont mind making Appeal to Authority arguments especially when a poster throws out the "idiot" and "yet another mistake" condemnations. Belichick is the football equivalent of a Karpov or a Kasparov in my opinion. And if there was anybody here that was truly capable of analyzing Belichick's moves and labelling him an idiot that person would actually be an NFL coach and not posting on these forums.

 

[Fencer]

You must not like the site Chessgames.com. People criticize GM play there all the time.

 

[Poker]

Interesting original post. Without a doubt, The Pats success is way more like backgammon or poker than chess. Here's the easy way to see that: Two division opponents play each other--a couple of year ago the Pats lost a close game to the jets then blew them out in the next game. That NEVER happens in chess if one opponent is measurable superior to another. The far better player wins every time.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Yes, chance plays a role in football.

Can we throw in the questions of whether the deterministic elements somehow resemble go instead of chess? I'm tired but I am sure in the morning I could extend the metaphor, unless you want to...

 

[Danger Zone]

You must not like the site Chessgames.com. People criticize GM play there all the time.

Unfortunately, I believe it.

 

[Gwedd]

Yes, chance plays a role in football.

Can we throw in the questions of whether the deterministic elements somehow resemble go instead of chess? I'm tired but I am sure in the morning I could extend the metaphor, unless you want to...

"GO" or perhaps "Pente" as well.

I love games. I've been playing all sorts of games for more than half a century now, and love a number of different systems. I am especially fond of miniature-based historical wargames, but also like Poker, Risk, Chess, ah hell... just about any game, really.

One of my favorites was "Diplomacy". It's about Europe just prior to WWI and the interactions between the various nations. We used to play it with teams of players representing each nation, and an umpire to make any rulings that might arise. We liked it so much that we discarded the 24" square board it came with and repainted it onto a 4X8' table. Made new playing pieces to replace the counters. The players all wore formal wear, and we served wine, cheese, and brandy & cigars afterward.

What I'm getting at is that it had many of the same variables as football. Different countries had different strengths & weaknesses, and each "team" of Diplomats had at least 3 players, like a HC with a DC and OC. But only the head of the delegation, the "HC" could turn in the move each turn.

Very eye opening, and you had to think towards your final goal, which was only one nation left standing at the end. You made alliances, and then broke them. Learned to trust and to be wary.

But there were still so many variables that it wasn't just brute strength that could win the game (though it could help) but a number of "finesse" moves to get you where you needed to be. Or lose you everything, ala the season.

Game theory, as well as statistics, are two sets of classes tht any serious football fan ought to consider taking, or at least reading up on. It will help you understand a lot of what the coaching staff is thinking about both when planning for an upcoming game, looking ahead at the schedule, and also within the game.

So much to consider, and so much to do so quickly between each play. It's no wonder we all enjoy it so much.

 

[Fencer]

That NEVER happens in chess if one opponent is measurable superior to another. The far better player wins every time.

That is quite the exaggeration, although you are directionally correct.

Example: When I took my first (and arguably only) corporate job, one of my colleagues laid in wait to challenge me to chess. We ultimately played four games, and I was decisively better, shocking him in one by beating him in less than twenty moves because he didn't know the most basic bishop sacrifice against a castled position. But he did win one of the four.

 

[Joker]

Here's football distilled to its basic form...AFAIC....

"Kill! Kill! Kill!"

 

[Danger Zone]

That is quite the exaggeration, although you are directionally correct.

Example: When I took my first (and arguably only) corporate job, one of my colleagues laid in wait to challenge me to chess. We ultimately played four games, and I was decisively better, shocking him in one by beating him in less than twenty moves because he didn't know the most basic bishop sacrifice against a castled position. But he did win one of the four.

As you get better at chess, the chances of you dropping a game to an inferior opponent start to fall off precipitously to the point where you wouldn't lose 1 out of 4 games to someone ranked in a tier below you.

 

[supafly]

After experiencing the '06 AFCCG comeback loss, the '07 SB loss helmet catch/3 dropped INTS/no holding called on 4 different OL/ref admitting to "starting" to blow the whistle/once in a lifetime ******** +

THEN (catches breath)

experiencing all over again in the 2011 season's SB loss with a multitude of fumbles, none of which are lost by the NYG/Welker dropped ball/another last minute defensive collapse =

I'm going to go with Yahtzee. Forget chess, forget backgammon---it's all about the Yahtzee.

 

[Fencer]

As you get better at chess, the chances of you dropping a game to an inferior opponent start to fall off precipitously to the point where you wouldn't lose 1 out of 4 games to someone ranked in a tier below you.

Actually, according to the Elo system, you "should" go exactly 3-1 vs. somebody ranked 200 points below you. 400 points is the spread at which you "should" go 4-0.

I don't think I ever won a tournament game against somebody 400 points above me, or lost one to somebody 400 points below, but my highest gaps probably were in the 250-300 range. Note also that such extreme pairings don't happen that often anyway, at least in the US (I can't vouch for international tournaments in small countries that accommodate national champions, etc.) -- typically only in the very early rounds of the largest tournaments. Note also that many chess games are drawn, and a lot of "upsets" take the form of draws between unevenly matched players. That 3-1 I referred to above is much more likely to be 2 wins by the superior player and 2 draws than it is to be 3 wins and a loss.

And then there was the time I was a pawn up with no obvious compensation against a much higher-rated player (600 points or so spread) who was, of all people, my chess teacher, but I blundered that back to a loss ...

On the other hand, in casual play with a tight clock -- the standard in those pre-digital days was simply 5 minutes for the game -- almost anything could or did happen.

 

[Joker]

Bobby Fischer vs. Boris Spassky = Seattle vs. Denver

 

[patfanken]

Wow, what a great thread. Thank you Chris. I can't say I agreed with everything you eaid, but you made your points well, and more importantly you made me think.

Mike I loved that you brought up poker. What a interesting metaphor. Since a great deal of the time you are not playing with the best cards,successful Poker is a lot about being able to tell a story with your betting and getting your opponent to believe it. But to be able to do that you have to establish credibility at the table. In other words you have to create a table legend, (aggressive, conservative it doesn't matter), then do the opposite when least expected. But Poker is random too often to be a great metaphor for football.

Still randomness plays a big role in every game. The penalty called or not called at a critical time, The guy who was wide open and the ball is just inches long. The fumble that bounces right back to the ball carrier....or not. Think about it. An offense gains 15 yards on a first and 10, but there is a holding call. Now its first and 20, and in the next 3 plays the offense gains 19 yds. So in 4 plays, the offense gets almost 40 yds, and it goes into the record books as a 3 and out. Great defense right. '

What has always made football so fascinating to me was the mental aspect of it. How that coaching could overcome talent more in football than any other team sport. And we will see a perfect example of it tomorrow.

I expect the Dolphins to come out with a great offensive scheme that the Pats aren't expecting and haven't seen, and move the ball well. Great coaching on their part. Then I can see the Pats great coaching staff respond and make the needed adjustment quickly enough get back into the game and win it.

That's part of the reason why the Chess metaphor is still the best one. Every game has a different strategy, and the staff who can best figure out what their opponent's strategy is. Who can make the adjustments to counter that strategy the fastest. Who can best communicate to their players what needs to be done. And who has best trained their players to make those adjustments on the fly....will be the one who USUALLY will win the game. Subject off course, to the random elements like bounces, calls, injuries, and drops.

MOST of the time, its the Pats staff who does this better than any team in the league. That's why they could get to a superbowl with a pretty horrible roster in 2011, and get to the AFCCG with all e the critical injuries and inexperience last season.

That's also why I'm so excited about this season. BB has proven time and time again that he can take average rosters and exceed expectations, And when he has a great roster, he will smoke the league. This roster may need another year to ripen, but right now it might just be the 3rd or 4th best roster (from top to bottom) that BB's had since he's been here. And I will stand by that, even though I wouldn't bet money that I can name correctly 4 of the 5 OL starters tomorrow.

 

[Fencer]

Bobby Fischer vs. Boris Spassky = Seattle vs. Denver

Only if Pete Carroll was bat-**** crazy.