[1propionyl]

No, it is not. First of all the territory isn't fixed. Second of all the existence of a fitness landscape (let alone ocean) doesn't guarantee the existence of unique optima, nor that the ones you identify aren't in a second or less your loss because your opponent read you. The other person's behavior is unpredictable but can be guided, and likewise. Feints are a huge part of fighting.

To think you can identify a model in this situation is pure hubris. Absolutely no one who fights thinks this way. Fighting is NOT LIKE CHESS.

This fundamental faith in modeling is dangerous. It overestimates its own applicability, and ignores its predisposition to only focus on the most available data (under the incorrect assumption that if you collect more and more it will eventually "average out").

[jstanley]

The entire universe is like chess.

Yes your opponent can make a move and you don't know what move they'll make. Chess is like that too.

I'm not saying this is in fact a good way to win a physical fight.

I'm also not saying the optimal move is unique. If 2 moves have the same utility then they can both be optimal.

What I'm saying is that just because you don't know what is the best move doesn't mean a best move exists.

[1propionyl]

It’s not even a well-defined question to ask "what is the best action".

To ask that in the context of a fight (not a bounded game like chess) is already to assume the existence of a complete utility function on which to measure it. That’s:

1. Philosophically, putting the cart before the horse.

2. Computationally, asking for the function that is the entire universe. Any utility function you define, an adversary (say, God) can find edge cases it doesn’t account for, endlessly. Chess has a finite state space; a fight doesn’t. Formalizing this hits the usual incompleteness and undecidability limits.

You’re claiming a perfect map exists (Platonist position); I’m saying that if such a thing exists, it’s just the territory itself, which isn’t a map (Nominalist position).