EST 0-1 INS · 48% MON 1-1 CLU · 43% GUA 2-0 ATL · 58% COL 1-2 CHI · 49% CLU 2-1 TOL · 54% YOK 1-2 KAW · 47% JEF 1-1 AVI · 42% V-V 1-0 TOK · 44% MAC 2-0 GAM · 62% AME 3-0 EYü · 71% PEC 1-1 ADO · 40% COM 2-0 VEN · 63% CER 1-2 ANT · 50% GET 0-1 SEV · 50% EST 0-1 INS · 48% MON 1-1 CLU · 43% GUA 2-0 ATL · 58% COL 1-2 CHI · 49% CLU 2-1 TOL · 54% YOK 1-2 KAW · 47% JEF 1-1 AVI · 42% V-V 1-0 TOK · 44% MAC 2-0 GAM · 62% AME 3-0 EYü · 71% PEC 1-1 ADO · 40% COM 2-0 VEN · 63% CER 1-2 ANT · 50% GET 0-1 SEV · 50%
Major League Soccer · Regular Season - 33 Geodis Park, Nashville Match Finished · 90'

Nashville SC
vs
Chicago Fire.

Quick answer

Who will win Nashville SC vs Chicago Fire?

Final score: Nashville SC 3–0 Chicago Fire. Before kickoff, 10 of 10 AI models pick Nashville SC to win (100%); the consensus was right. The AI predicted score was 1–0.

Consensus of independent AI models on TuringStats, updated before kickoff. Not betting advice.

Head-to-head history → Nashville SC form Chicago Fire form

All 10 AIs agree. When the whole council agrees, it has been right 62% of the time (806 matches).

10 AI models read this match. The plurality on 1X2 leans toward Nashville SC (10 of 10 models). The mean predicted score (rounded from all models) is 1–0 at 46% mean confidence (Medium band) — see the strip and table below.

Who do you think will win?

Vote before kick-off and compare with AI

Major League Soccer table Where Nashville SC and Chicago Fire stand right now
— Consensus

Where the panel lands.

Vote share across models. Read this strip first, then the line-by-line table.

Nashville SC win 100%

10 / 10 models

Draw 0%

0 / 10 models

Chicago Fire win 0%

0 / 10 models

— Model breakdown

10 picks. Receipts attached.

Line-by-line comparison of each system’s call.

#
Model
Pick
Score
Conf.
Reasoning
01
GPT-6 Luna
Nashville SC win
1–0
53%
Nashville SC’s home advantage at Geodis Park gives them a modest edge, while the absence of form and H2H data argues for a cautious, low-scoring estimate against Chicago Fire.
02
Claude Sonnet 5.5
Nashville SC win
2–1
54%
Nashville historically solid at Geodis Park with organized defense; Chicago capable of scoring but inconsistent on the road late in season.
03
Gemini 3.8 Flash
Nashville SC win
2–0
60%
Nashville SC typically maintain a disciplined defensive structure at Geodis Park, giving them a strong edge against a Chicago Fire side that often struggles on the road.
04
Grok 4.7
Nashville SC win
1–0
52%
No H2H or 2026 form given. Nashville at Geodis Park usually edges MLS games with control, so a tight 1-0 home win is the best exact guess.
05
DeepSeek V4 Pro
Nashville SC win
1–0
52%
Nashville's home edge at Geodis Park and typically solid defensive organization should edge a low-scoring affair against a Chicago side that often struggles on the road.
06
Qwen 3.8 Max
Nashville SC win
1–0
52%
Nashville's strong home record at Geodis Park and defensive solidity favor a narrow win; limited context on current form keeps confidence moderate.
07
Mistral Medium 3.5
Nashville SC win
1–0
60%
Nashville strong at Geodis Park; Chicago inconsistent away. Tight, low-scoring likely.
08
Kimi K3
Nashville SC win
2–1
58%
Nashville's Geodis Park provides a strong home advantage in MLS, and Chicago's defensive inconsistencies on the road suggest a narrow home victory in a competitive match.
09
GLM 5.3
Nashville SC win
1–0
52%
No H2H data available; Nashville's home form at Geodis Park typically makes them solid defensively, suggesting a narrow home win in a low-scoring MLS fixture.
10
MiMo V2.6 Pro
Nashville SC win
2–1
58%
Nashville's strong home record at Geodis Park gives them an edge; Chicago Fire's away form is inconsistent, but both teams often score, leading to a narrow home win.
— Scoreline frequency

How often each scoreline showed up.

6 of 10 models settled on 1–0. That convergence is a strong scoreline signal—many fixtures fan out wider across the panel.

  • 1–0
    6 models
  • 2–1
    3 models
  • 2–0
    1 model

Season data

Major League Soccer numbers for both sides, when they score and the players who carry them.

Nashville SC

4-2-3-1
W-D-L
21-8-3
Goals
66-23
Clean sheets
16
Failed to score
6
Best win run
5
Penalties
4/4
When they score
15'30'45'60'75'90'
When they concede
15'30'45'60'75'90'

Chicago Fire

4-4-2
W-D-L
15-7-10
Goals
57-48
Clean sheets
7
Failed to score
3
Best win run
3
Penalties
4/8
When they score
15'30'45'60'75'90'
When they concede
15'30'45'60'75'90'

Key players · Nashville SC

  • H. Mukhtar 16 G · 7 A · 32 apps
  • S. Surridge 18 G · 1 A · 26 apps
  • C. Espinoza 4 G · 12 A · 28 apps

Key players · Chicago Fire

  • P. Zinckernagel 7 G · 8 A · 31 apps

Top scorers · Major League Soccer

  1. 1 L. Messi Inter Miami 25
  2. 2 P. Musa FC Dallas 22
  3. 3 Rafael Navarro St. Louis City 19
  4. 4 M. Iloski Philadelphia Union 19
  5. 5 D. Bouanga Los Angeles FC 18
Venue Geodis Park, Nashville
Referee L. Hernandez
New at Nashville SC Owen Presthus (Columbus Crew), F. Camara (Ranheim), Z. Yañez (New York City FC)
New at Chicago Fire N. Allen (Inter Miami), J. Gómez (Eintracht Braunschweig), A. Mekvabishvili (Universitatea Craiova)
— Aggregated insights

What’s moving the panel.

01
Consensus favors Nashville SC

100% of models lean home — the clearest cluster on this fixture before kickoff.

02
Medium confidence

Mean 46% across the panel with real dispersion — compare unanimous calls vs split tickets in the model table.

03
xG tilt 1.40 vs 0.30

Derived from predicted scorelines (model means), not live match data — useful for pace vs vote-share sanity checks.

04
Match context

Expected-goals tilt and home-field rhythm (see xG on this page) usually explain whether the game stays open or compresses late.

Ask the Council about this match

Pro

10 AI models vote yes or no with this match's last-5 form, head-to-head, live status and the model picks above attached — not from memory. Then keep asking the same council follow-ups.

Result check

Actual Nashville SC win · AI Nashville SC win

1X2: Miss Score: Off
— Match context

Form, history, team news.

Nashville SC
#1 · 71 PTS · GD +43
Last 5
D W D W W
11 GF · 2 GA
Recent fixtures
  • Philadelphia Union 0-0 D
  • CF Montreal 0-2 W
  • San Jose Earthquakes 1-1 D
  • Sporting Kansas City 4-0 W
  • Austin 1-4 W
Team news

No major injury updates in the current API snapshot.

Chicago Fire
#4 · 52 PTS · GD +9
Last 5
D W L L W
8 GF · 9 GA
Recent fixtures
  • Orlando City SC 2-2 D
  • Atlanta United FC 2-3 W
  • New England Revolution 1-0 L
  • Philadelphia Union 1-3 L
  • New York City FC 2-1 W
Team news

No major injury updates in the current API snapshot.

— Head to head

Last five meetings.

NAS 1 · D 0 · CHI 0

NAS VS CHI
3-0
HOME WIN
Sep 20, 2026

Confidence trend

Cumulative average confidence in table order.

First model Last model

Betting tips (AI-signal view)

Educational only — not financial advice. We summarize how the AI picks cluster so you can cross-check with your own staking plan.

  • Lean with the plurality: when 100% of models side with Nashville SC, treat that as the default script unless late team news breaks the assumptions.
  • Watch the draw lane at 0% — tight Major League Soccer games often compress toward stalemates when both midfields win the second-ball.
  • If you chase “best bets today” narratives, require alignment between the headline pick and the score-frequency table; conflicting signals usually mean thinner edge.

Odds & analysis (implied probabilities)

Implied fair percentages from the model vote share (normalized to 100%) approximate how a balanced market might price the 1X2 if it mirrored this panel — useful for odds analysis homework even though we do not quote sportsbook ticks here.

Nashville SC
~100%
implied lean
Draw
~0%
implied lean
Chicago Fire
~0%
implied lean

Over / under prediction (totals)

Model-derived xG sums to 1.70 goals in expectation. A notional totals line near 2 is consistent with that pace (rounded for readability). If your sportsbook posts a similar number, compare juice and live team news before deciding either side of the total.

Handicap prediction (spread-style read)

When Nashville SC is priced as the stronger side in the model vote, a −1 handicap narrative only clears if the most common scorelines include multi-goal wins. Cross-check the score-frequency list: if tight one-goal wins dominate, Asian handicaps near pick’em or −0.5 / −0.75 splits often fit the story better than a full −1.5 sell.

BTTS prediction (both teams to score)

With combined offensive weight near 1.70 xG, a heuristic “both teams score” prior lands around 55% yes before defensive adjustments. If several top models forecast clean-sheet pathways, downgrade BTTS enthusiasm even when the raw xG sum looks juicy.

Best bet framing (consensus-led)

Our headline best bet label follows the consensus recommendation: Nashville SC win. Pair that with the confidence band (Medium) — high dispersion across models usually argues for smaller stake or pass, even when the headline pick looks tempting for a today prediction card on social.

Match overview

Looking for a today prediction on Nashville SC vs Chicago Fire in Major League Soccer? TuringStats aggregates multiple AI scorelines into one readable page so you can see who the models favor, the mean predicted score shown in the hero (1 - 0; the frequency chart below lists the most common exact scorelines), and implied splits before kickoff.

This prediction hub is written for readers comparing betting tips-style language with transparent model votes — not a single black-box call. The headline read is Nashville SC win, with vote shares roughly 100% / 0% / 0% home, draw, and away (rounded).

If you are asking who will win Nashville SC vs Chicago Fire, start with the consensus strip and model table, then cross-check form and injuries in Match context further down — that order keeps the strongest signals first.

Explore more

Keep browsing today prediction coverage and league hubs.

Related matches

— Journal

Articles linked to these clubs or AI forecasting.

Ask multiple AIs about this match.

10 models vote yes or no with this match's last-5 form, head-to-head, live status and our model picks attached — not from memory. Then ask follow-ups to the same council.