I just don't see how your observation (that you are not aware of any game that solves the problem well) leads to your conclusion (that its solution is computationally complex). I can see that there may be other lines of reasoning that support that conclusion, for example something pertaining to the algorithms and techniques involved, but I also see how other conclusions may be true given your observation.
> Why on earth are you arguing this at all — the counter to a point I never made — and why are you arguing from a position of ignorance like it makes you smarter than me?
You are reading way too much into my post. I am arguing from a position of ignorance, but under no pretense that it somehow makes me smarter than you. On the contrary, it seems like you are familiar with the problem, and I think that you may have made much more relevant observations than the one you posted, but because my post has already prompted a more detailed description of the problem and its potential solutions I don't have to wait through petty insults to hear about it.
> Why on earth are you arguing this at all — the counter to a point I never made — and why are you arguing from a position of ignorance like it makes you smarter than me?
You are reading way too much into my post. I am arguing from a position of ignorance, but under no pretense that it somehow makes me smarter than you. On the contrary, it seems like you are familiar with the problem, and I think that you may have made much more relevant observations than the one you posted, but because my post has already prompted a more detailed description of the problem and its potential solutions I don't have to wait through petty insults to hear about it.