The Chess Mind

I tend to agree very much with your final outcome prediction, however I think this game might take us back to the Super Bowl glory days of lopsided blowouts. The Saints (for as good as they are) could barely beat the Vikings (and took OT to do it) after the Vikings turned the ball over 5 times...& everybody knows that turnovers win football games. They even received a gift 12th man in the huddle penalty at the end of the game when the Vikes where in field goal attempt range. As much as I hate the Colts (and it's a lot, mostly because I don't like Manning), I think this game will be very one sided Indy's way.

Saints 27-21

The Vikes' defense was, however, very much better than the Colts'. Look what they did to Tony Romo. The Colts' defense faced, uh, Joe Flacco and Mark Sanchez. There's a distinct blowout chance the other way. To be sure, Super Bowl nerves often prevent a true shootout from developing like in Arizona-GB, and the Saints are more susceptible to that.

My prediction: Saints 41, Colts 24.

I must admit that I do not understand such predictions. When you predict: "Indy 35-31", you seem to be making some sort of assertion about the future. But obviously and transparently you do not, at this time, literally believe that the outcome will be Indy 35-31. So you seem to making an assertion while obviously and transparently not believing that which you assert. But that seems self-defeating, or even impossible. Perhaps you are pretending to believe, and pretending to assert, that the outcome will be Indy 35-31. Or perhaps it is a bet rather than a prediction, hence not an assertion or pretended assertion at all.

I just heard on NPR a segment on bees which related that they vote independently, sans groupthink. The commentator related as an "old chestnut" a human experiment where estimates of the # of jelly beans in a big jar that are independent give an average that is surprisingly close to the true answer. Whereas when people communicate, consensus coalesces along some alpha-person's answer, which is usually much further off.

Hence to answer Bernard, if 1000 more people post their "predictions"---I almost called mine a "predilection"---without reading others', we could all bet on the average and get rich! (Just kidding.)

Real bookies and prediction markets like Intrade use a market-balancing system, which also works well.

The analogue in chess is to ask, how would Kasparov fare against a world audience of a million voting on moves, *without* communicating the way Microsoft ran it 11 years ago?

Bernard, do you really not understand what people mean, or is your real point that calling such statement "predictions" fails to meet lexical muster? Here's one way to think of it: while I don't claim to be seeing the future or to have received info on the game from the deity, I believe that (a) the Colts will win and that (b) the scoring totals and winning margin are likely to approximate the numbers I gave, which (c) seem at least as likely to occur as any alternative totals fulfilling (a) and (b).

I win for closest prediction! 31-17 (27-21 my pred.)

I got the score half-right...but that didn't quite work out the way I had hoped. Oh well.

If you were to pick a sport closest to chess though American Football has similarities....

The better team won; it's as simple as that. The two best teams in the NFL played each other two weeks ago when the Saints sqeaked by with an overtime victory against the Vikings. Had that game gone the other way, it would have been Brett Favre hoisting the Lombardi trophy last night.

Honestly, I never understood how almost all of the "experts" predicted a Colts victory when you consider the performances of the Colts and Saints against the Patriots earlier in the season. For one quarter of last night's game it looked like maybe the "experts" had it right. From the second quarter on, it was clear that they were dead wrong.

Last night NFL MVP Manning played a great game, but Brees (who should have won that award) was better. The Colts offensive line protected Manning pretty well, but eventually he faltered under pressure.

And last night was not only predictable, it was destiny! Granted, my take on this is as biased as that Saints hater who hosts this blog. ;-)

Bill,

While I think the Saints were deserving winners, the game doesn't seem to me as cut and dried as you're suggesting. At any rate, I wish to communicate a different point, which is that rooting for Indy (or Minnesota two weeks before that) doesn't make me a Saints "hater".

Well, it's Tuesday & I'm feeling well enough to post again. I'm so happy the Saints won (even tho this is the 1st time in a long time I didn't make a bet with my friend in Alabama). I really don't like the Saint's, but I really don't care for Peyton Manning. It was nice seeing him walk off the field without even shaking hands with his opponents. It was also nice to see a non-blow out game too. Congrats to everyone here who picked NO to win, I was sure proven wrong.

Dennis,

My comments were biased and—somewhat deliberately—over the top, but your points are well taken. Rooting for their opponents doesn't make you a Saints hater, and my saying that the better team/quarterback won is too simplistic a description of what happened in the game.

Arguably, luck played a significant role. For example, Sean Payton's decision to open the 2nd half with an onside kick was a spectacular, possibly game-changing, gamble. Had it been unsuccessful, who knows how the game might have turned out? Continuing to blitz Manning throughout the game was another gamble which paid off fabulously in the 4th quarter with Porter's game-cliching pick 6.

However, I think the Saints were underestimated going into the game and their victory on Sunday was not QUITE as improbable as many people seemed to think.

The Saints were one of the last undefeated teams for a reason.