Slashdot Mirror
Game Theory at 190mph
cameronm writes "A recent article in Slate discusses the value of NASCAR racing as a tool to study Game Theory. You can view the original study at FirstMonday."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
I am not a big fan of NASCAR, but I would think that the mechanics and those who design the cars have a more difficult job than the driver's themselves....
It's no the complexity or simplicity of the track, that is unimportant. The point is the challenge and the danger involved in NASCAR. Another reasons fans like NASCAR is because everyone drives and everyone can try to make their car faster. The final reason is that the drivers are friendly unlike other sports and aren't paid many millions of dollars for the most part.
once you are in "line" you need to stick your head out once a while otherwise your engines overheat.
I am sure that contributes to a WHOLE other dimension of it - how do you know if the guy's going out for "fresh breath" or passing?
My life in the land of the rising sun.
Usually at the Winner's Circle or whenever the driver gets some time to talk to the camera, they thank their pit crew first. If you've ever seen them change tires, or whatever it's incredibly fast. Not to mention all of the other repairs they have to do at lightning speed.
I used to absolutely abhor NASCAR. The only thing I'd ever watch were the wrecks. Now I'm the type of guy to leave some sort of sports on the teevee while tooling around online or playing games in MAME. But starting last year during a really bad cold I began to watch NASCAR. At first I was like okay this is at least as exciting as soccer. Then I watched some more and the wrecks were fricken awesome. Okay, one more race. More awesome wrecks. Then again. Next thing I knew I actually began to pay real attention (well in the same way I'd watch a BBall game) and suddenly it struck me. NASCAR is a hell of a lot smarter than I was giving it credit for.
Races play out a lot like a chess game, there is an immense amount of strategy involved. Hell there is a concerted effort going on with everyone at very high rates of reaction times... one fuckup and bam they all go down. NASCAR really gets a bum rap because of the stupid commercials, southern drawls and history. But for techies and people willing to look past it's somewhat boring motif there is a somewhat rewarding experience there.
Then again I also like any kind of car racing. Perhaps one too many hours of Gran Tourismo broked my brain.
--- I do not moderate.
Pretty much all I'm seeing in this thread so far is a bunch of insults of the intelligence of NASCAR fans. (Of course, this is slashdot, and this is the first few posts...)
However, I think one thing that people overlook is the level of creativity the teams have to have to make their car superior to the next team's. This year, all the makes have to fit the same set of templates -- that is, the cars have to be practically the same shape, whether a Chevy, Ford, Pontiac, or Dodge. Meaning no make has a particular aerodynamic advantage over another, and teams can't tweak the shape of their car for more speed. NASCAR has strict rules on engine specifications and suspension setup. There's a lot of engineering work in these cars that, while not necessarily directly applicable to street cars the way, say, World Rally Championship technology is, still helps the automakers develop more efficient, better performing, safer cars. Teamwork matters in NASCAR -- many a race has been won or lost just because of how well the pit crew did their job.
American racing really grew out of the county fair "thrill show." Naturally this led to their being held on horse tracks in front of a grandstand where the audience could always see all of the action.
The basic philosophical premise has always been man to man combat. Ben Hur in the modern age.
European racing grew out of an entirely different concept. There the idea was the "test." Pitting the machines of different manufacturers against each other to see which one could best negotiate its way between two points over the road. The driver was considered largely incidental. There merely because someone had to be there to operate the machine.
While the two styles have converged somewhat over the course of a century, their unique orginal philosophies are still evident as they are performed today.
As well as in their respective audiences.
KFG
Game Theory is also often used in Political Science in conjunction with Rational Choice Theory. They use GT to produce formal models of potential choices that an individual rational actor will take when faced with a certain decision. It is often used in attempts to explain political behavior. However, Rational Choice often comes under fire as a mode of operation because of how complex these formal models tend to be. To explain a half page diagram and a good narrative, they will utilize a few pages of greek letters and mathematical formulas in a way to predict human behavior.
Still, despite the fact that its not very readable, its fairly en vogue in Political Science to either use Rat. Choice or to trash Rat. Choice.
A quick primer in ultra basic physics: Assuming all equipment is equal, two or more cars running nose to tail (starting at about 130 MPH+) can move faster than a single car with the same amount of horsepower, due to the drafting effect.
At two tracks on the NASCAR schedule (Daytona and Talladega), restrictor plates are used (I won't get into the religious war as to why the plates are used). The effect is that due to the cars being "underpowered" as (compared to the circuit's grip and traction potential), the cars do not maximize the track, they are able to negotiate the entire course without having to lift or brake. Due to the artificially enhanced draft effect, no car is able to pull away from the pack. Hence there is a continual chess game using this effect to work your way to the front, for gaining points for leading, and to be at the right spot for the last lap. Part of the chess game is teaming up to create temporary alliances to maximize the draft.
While the draft effect is a crucial part at other high speed tracks on the circuit (Michigan, Charlotte, etc), the effect is the most important aspect at Talladega and Daytona.
...but being ultra nitpicky. The draft effect can definitely be measured at those speeds, but for meaningful use during NASCAR races you only can truly utilize it at the speeds I mentioned. When truckers utilize the effect, they have the luxury of long stretches of road. NASCAR drivers have at the most, 1 mile to make use of it (at tracks other than Dega/Daytona) before having to brake. Daytona and Talladega repesent the extreme use of this effect. At the other tracks, there is more emphasis of driver skill and equipment construction. At short tracks like Bristol and Martinsville (1/2 mile total), the draft effect (however tiny and measurable it is) is never something a driver even subconciously thinks to try to utilize.
The real world must be a lot simpler than I have always believed, or perhaps they should be studying a sport like european bicycle road racing, which shares the cooperation/competition thing, but has nine or ten guys per team in scenarios where, because of terrain or the type of race, certain teams/riders can excel and have a real chance to win one day, but not the next, and everyone knows what everyone else's strengths and weaknesses are. Also, things like national loyalty, even between riders on different teams, often plays into things, as well as riders "thanking" other teams for giving them a nice contract for the upcoming season, and blowing off their current team.
It's a heartless sport really, much like life.
RTFM; please, I beg you.
Depends on your definition of "major" touring car series. the speed channel world touring car series and the british touring car series both run cars that are race prepared versions of the street cars.
interesting note on Group N rally cars - these cars actually perform poorer than the street cars in some cases due to the strict regulations placed on these cars. Check out the latest issue of Sport Compact Car for the exact numbers.
It is kind of frustrating to read articles like this because the action seen in the Daytona 500 is not indicative of NASCAR racing in general. Since the Daytona 500 is by far the biggest race and thus picks up the most casual viewers, there are many people getting to see true NASCAR action, but the very ugly restrictor place bastardization instead.
There are 36 races in the NASCAR season. Four of them, including the Daytona 500, are run with restrictor plates on the carburetors (which limits the horsepower). The effects that these plates have on the cars and the race are many, but the net effect is that they equalize the cars to a ridiculous degree. What this means is that the draft becomes the only away to get an advantage on another car and so you absolutely need a 'buddy' to run with you if you want to make a pass. This is the phenomenon that is explored in the Slate article.
Now, there are some interesting things that go on during a NASCAR restrictor plate race: the cooperation with opponents, the constant need of strategy, the frequent teamwork, etc. And hey, the game theory applications in the referenced articles are pretty neat. It is indeed a high-speed chess game. But as someone else already said here, one thing is it NOT, is racing.
Rest assured that most of the races in the NASCAR season still boil down to a good old fashioned "run the car as fast as you can, the best man wins". For sure, drafting strategy still comes into play in some of the other races on the larger tracks, but it's not the one and only thing that determines every position on the track. In this poster's opinion, it's a shame that the great Daytona 500 is sullied by restrictor plates.
Note: Restrictor plates were mandated by NASCAR as a safety measure, but the way they equalize everybody's speed causes extremely congested groups of cars, and that has led to some really huge crashes. One could argue that Dale Earnhardt's death is partly attributable to the restrictor plate rule. It's a very controversial issue.
In my opinion, cycling is much more intricate than NASCAR. Since theorists like simple things.
Let me give some examples of how cyclng is more intricate than NASCAR:
- The person in front of a group is putting in more effort than the rest of the group. Therefore everybody takes turns at the front of the group and the group is constantly rotating ("cycling").
- Although the wind-effect is levelling the field, there are still people who are better (are fitter) than others. As said in the article, the differences between nascars are minimal. Also there are specialists in every team: Sprinters, Climbers, Loners, Rain-people, Coblle, etc.
- In a burst effort, you can get clear of your group. But you can only do that a few times, therefore you have to play your cards right.
- Not to mention team tactics. Cyclist who are designated as a "helper" (in Dutch "knecht") is obliged to put effort into getting his teammate into a good position, an action which removes all chances of him winning. Sometimes that means thaking the front position in a group. This often escalates to an entire team (about 7 persons) at the front of the pack; racing like mad.
But positioning is also vital. When the pack makes a sprint the positioning and timing in the pack is vital. Since the pack is constanly rotating (usually the ouside goes faster than the inside, followed by the outside becoming the inside) it's a question of timeing. Also if the pack makes a turn, the cyclist on the outside has to make a lot more distance than the inside. Being on the wrong side of the curve will cost you 10 places, at least!
I could go on and on and on...
Probably because nascar is just as boring and slow as chess to watch.
Seriously, I'm not just trying to make take a cheap shot, I do have a line of thought here.
I always find that games and sports, that are fun to participate in are the least fun to watch.
Soccer is incredebly fun to play, but I gladly admit that the game is slow to watch. (Unless you *really* care about the end score)
Hockey is the exact opposite, fun to watch, but just a crowded mess to play.
Me, I'd love to get behind the wheel of a racing car on the oval track and apply some of that game theory. But watching others is (IMHO) just plain dull.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
I don't see how you could do worse than use Walmart as a study basis for sociality theories. Just like Sears made some pretty profound implications for social change with their mail order business, the fact that Walmart has been basically transforming many rural areas they're part of by a flood of mass produced mid-quality goods has got to have some implications as well. Before Walmart many rural areas had to depend on untrustowrthy local distributors and access to urban centers, now they too can get cheaply made crap from around the world exactly like everyone else. In many ways they're like homogenized corporate flea markets.
I'm not saying that Walmart is good or bad. The way they use controls over their distribution and those implications of control are pretty nasty, but on the other hand I can't see how many places in rural America would be better off if there hadn't been a Walmart. It simply gives rural America better access to consumer goods than main street type small businesses could possibly afford to, covering goods that might not otherwise make it into smaller markets.
No one will read this post (seeing as how it is so late in the game on /. - at the bottom of the page, with almost 400 other posts ahead of it), but I'd like to add my opinion to the mix all the same.
I just spent about an hour reading the paper that Slate reported on here. Likewise, I just spent fifteen minutes reading the +5 posts here. Almost nobody who got moderated up has anything worthwhile to say about the actual paper or topic. Posts are either "Nascar sux0rz" or "a primer in game thoery" (from a mouth breathing k5-er no doubt).
David Ronfeldt (the paper's author) appears to be a well read, and well researched writer on the topic of game theory. He also appears to be a knowledgeable fan of NASCAR racing. I just wish that he had put his modified prisoner's dilemma diagram at the front of his paper! This "main point" was a long time coming in the paper. Having read my fair share of Game Theory papers, I can vouch for the value that readers place on brevity. Likewise, it would have been helpful if the "draft-line" metaphor had been more thoroughly threshed out mathematically.
Looking at his diagram, it seems as though Ronfeldt may have found a metaphor sufficient for explaining the outcomes and impulses of actors in this modified Prisoner's Dilemma. I don't feel that there is much more value than that in this paper.