Why do philosophers bother to try having opinions about the fundamental nature of reality when we as a species aren't...

Why do philosophers bother to try having opinions about the fundamental nature of reality when we as a species aren't even capable of completely solving a 64 square children's game?

Why do physicists bother to try having opinions about ethics when they can't even solve the trolley problem?

Chess isn't a children's game. It has a huge possibility space which makes it extremely difficult to solve.

If you mean checkers, it is solved.

Veeky Forums and /v/ solved the trolley problem in a joint effort years ago

Why does OP bother being a faggot when he can't even the game?

>64 squares
>huge

This is why we should give up on trying to colonize the stars.

Can Stratego be solved?

It has incomplete information, bluffing and deceit so it's deeper than chess.

Technically you're allowed to use different positions to begin with, but in reality we all know you're always putting your flag in the corner surrounded by bombs.

Yes, there is an optimal strategy.

Man this takes me back. Good post.

Both checkers and chess are solved. No known being can defeat the machines we've developed.

I said fully solved. Chess isn't fully solved. You can develop a machine that no living human ever beats and still not have chess fully solved. Fully solved doesn't mean "built a machine that's objectively better than all living humans."

what was the solution

chess is not solved retard

except I pretend to do this while hiding it elsewhere, and I don't even put the decoy in the corner but slightly next to it. get on my level, scrub.

>not using corners
>not using the only way to completely surround two different single square positions with bombs

Garbage strategy.

>solved=/=machines are better than humans

Why do you post on an anime board when you are incapable of reaching 1200 ELO on a 64 square children's game?

h2>h1

>It has incomplete information, bluffing and deceit so it's deeper than chess.

So is rock paper scissors also deeper than chess?

Q takes and suddenly your passed pawn is gone.

After Nh5+, I don't think white can avoid mate without trading the queen for the rook, leaving black with a knight and a pawn advantage.

>h2>h1
then what? the move isn't complete.

Not quite. If pawn promotes to anything but knight, white can draw.

Bobby Fischer knew the absolute truth to that, among other things.

Does this have to be done in one move? If not, maybe g6 to g5 then f6 to h5

Can't move king into check.

what game can you play with 64 square children ?

Okay, what about g6 to g5, then f6 to e4, then f5 to e4, then h2 to h1 promote to knight.

KILL LESS PEOPLE YOU FUCKING IDIOT

Whoops meant g6 to h5 for first move.

>can't even beat a primitive computer at chess
>try having opinions about the fundamental nature of reality

>can't get a score higher than 3 in flappy bird
>own species went to the moon

Yeah

Kh5, Qf3!+

Scratch that I went full retard there.
Ne4+

well what does it mean

Wow. I really need to stop.
Kh7

>implying

>le commie jewish menace
>muh bright lights
>muh water

certifiable genius over the board tho, mad props.

The man singlehandedly rekt the Soviet chess machine.

What's wrong with kh5?

if you do nothing, you kill nobody. If you pull the switch, you are now a murderer.

Your logic would be thrown out in a court of law.

The white queen would take your knight, you would react by promoting your pawn for a queen but you'd be mated by Qg5

What if you promote that pawn to a knight instead?

...fuck

h1 queen, Qxh1, Ne4 ck, Qxe4, Pxe4

If after Ne4 ck the white king runs to h4, mate is inevitable after Rd3.

A computer can solve it. Why doesnt it have opinions about the fundamental nature of reality?

I think Kh5, Ne4, Pe4 which will take white queen, Ph1 promote to knight is the correct answer.

...

It means there is a known, perfect strategy that cannot be beaten by any other strategy, including computers. To find a perfect strategy, someone would need to show that no matter what moves the opponent makes, the perfect strategy wins (or draws, depending on if chess is a winnable game or not). There are so many possible moves, it's has not been feasible to prove this yet.

>muh utility