_MVP_
-T-
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2022
- Posts
- 61,479
- Reputation
- 65,220
how tactically complex is soccer? i think its more complex than chess, and chess already has more possible games than atoms in the universe.
That’s a really interesting comparison—and you’re not wrong to feel that soccer can be more tactically complex than chess, even though the complexity is a different kind.
Let’s break it down carefully.
Chess is combinatorially complex:
But chess has key constraints:
This makes chess computationally massive, but structurally clean.
Soccer is continuous, real-time, multi-agent, imperfect-information complexity.
In soccer:
This alone makes the “number of possible game states” essentially uncountable, not just astronomically large.
At any moment:
Chess has:
This makes soccer closer to real-time strategy games, swarm systems, or fluid dynamics than board games.
Soccer tactics operate on multiple time scales at once:
In chess, all tactics collapse into the same decision framework.
It depends what you mean by complex:
Chess has more countable permutations.
Soccer includes:
No chess engine has to worry about slipping, mis-hitting a pass, or misreading an opponent’s run.
Important insight:
Why?
This is why robotic soccer and football analytics are still orders of magnitude behind chess engines, despite far more computing power.
Both are complex—but soccer’s complexity is:
Your intuition is defensible and shared by many analysts:
Chess complexity comes from quantity of possibilities.
Soccer complexity comes from quality of interaction.
If you want, I can also:
Just say the word.
That’s a really interesting comparison—and you’re not wrong to feel that soccer can be more tactically complex than chess, even though the complexity is a different kind.
Let’s break it down carefully.
1. Chess complexity (the baseline you mentioned)
Chess is combinatorially complex:
- Average branching factor: ~35 legal moves per position
- Typical game length: ~80 plies (half-moves)
- Estimated number of possible games (Shannon number): ~10¹²⁰
- That number is famously greater than the estimated number of atoms in the observable universe (~10⁸⁰)
But chess has key constraints:
- Discrete turns
- Perfect information
- Fixed board and pieces
- No randomness or physical execution limits
This makes chess computationally massive, but structurally clean.
2. Soccer’s complexity is fundamentally different
Soccer is continuous, real-time, multi-agent, imperfect-information complexity.
a) Continuous action space
In soccer:
- Players can move in any direction, at any speed, at any moment
- Passes have infinite variations (angle, pace, spin, timing)
- Decisions aren’t turn-based—they overlap constantly
This alone makes the “number of possible game states” essentially uncountable, not just astronomically large.
b) 22 independent decision-makers
At any moment:
- 22 players are making decisions simultaneously
- Each player’s choice affects the available options of all others
- Tactical meaning emerges from interactions, not individual moves
Chess has:
- 1 decision-maker at a time
- Zero simultaneous action
This makes soccer closer to real-time strategy games, swarm systems, or fluid dynamics than board games.
c) Tactical layers in soccer
Soccer tactics operate on multiple time scales at once:
- Micro (milliseconds): body orientation, first touch, pressing triggers
- Meso (seconds): overloads, rotations, counter-pressing shapes
- Macro (minutes): fatigue, scoreline management, psychological momentum
- Meta (weeks/months): scouting, opponent-specific game plans
In chess, all tactics collapse into the same decision framework.
3. Why soccer may be “more complex” than chess
It depends what you mean by complex:
If you mean calculable complexity → chess wins
Chess has more countable permutations.
If you mean decision complexity under uncertainty → soccer wins
Soccer includes:
- Imperfect information
- Physical execution limits
- Noise, fatigue, injuries, weather
- Referees and rule interpretation
- Psychological effects
No chess engine has to worry about slipping, mis-hitting a pass, or misreading an opponent’s run.
4. Why AI proves your intuition
Important insight:
- Chess has been “solved” at superhuman levels by brute-force + evaluation
- Soccer has not been solved tactically, even approximately
Why?
- Continuous space
- Massive state-action space
- Coordination problems among many agents
- Learning must generalize, not calculate
This is why robotic soccer and football analytics are still orders of magnitude behind chess engines, despite far more computing power.
5. A useful analogy
- Chess is like a massive decision tree
- Soccer is like a turbulent fluid system with intelligent particles
Both are complex—but soccer’s complexity is:
- Emergent
- Non-enumerable
- Context-dependent
- Never repeatable in exactly the same way
Bottom line
Your intuition is defensible and shared by many analysts:
Chess complexity comes from quantity of possibilities.
Soccer complexity comes from quality of interaction.
If you want, I can also:
- Compare soccer to Go instead of chess
- Break down complexity by specific tactical systems (pressing, buildup, transitions)
- Talk about why humans still outperform AI tactically in soccer
Just say the word.
