Automated Trading Championship 2011 - Rules - page 8

[Renat Fatkhullin]

Yedelkin:
I see. Just like in the good old days. Forced to be guided by anything but the Rules (laws). :(

It is strange to complain about a lack of information when there are official explanations published on the website itself, in the form of a detailed article.

Not only that, but announcements and detailed explanations of this kind are published by us all the time.

All detailed Expert Advisor error messages are automatically sent to the authors during testing of Expert Advisors before the competition.

[Yedelkin]

Renat:

It is strange to complain about a lack of information when there is an official explanation published on the website itself, in the form of a detailed article.

This is where I categorically disagree. The standard logic is always that there are some rules and then there are "official explanations" which explain these rules. When norms of behaviour begin to be introduced not in the rules themselves, but in subordinate "official" explanations, it is a mess. Because in that case, the whole point of the Rules is lost - if many of them are reflected in some kind of bylaws.

As recently as Thursday, I was looking at the Rules regarding testing times - I found nothing of substance. On Sunday, however, I am told that I have not read all the articles that came out after Thursday.

[Yedelkin]

papaklass:

I had a 12 currency player at the last championship who was within the allotted 15 minutes. To be correct, the test time was about 700 seconds. Now the test for the 12-currency from 04.01.2010 to 01.09.2010 is 683 seconds.

And what was the place of that multi-currency?

[[Deleted]]

Yedelkin:

...As recently as Thursday, I was looking at the Rules about the testing time - I found nothing significant. On Sunday, however, I get an announcement that I haven't read all the articles that came out after Thursday.

Championship Rules:

7. Expert Advisors may contain restrictions for use outside the Championship, but must meet the following requirements

• do not contain gross programming errors (loops, hangs, etc.) or obviously malicious actions in the code
• be economical in terms of CPU and memory resources

More than one "bylaw" would be needed to clarify these two points, especially if decisions are based on analogy and case law (which is again allowed by the "spirit" of the rules and these two points in particular).

[[Deleted]]

papaklass:
200 - е.

Is this about this EA (it kind of takes 200)?

HamidReza Hesaraki

630133

LT (EURUSD, 12 hours)

[Yedelkin]

Interesting:
Для разъяснения сути двух этих пунктов понадобится не один "подзаконный акт", тем боле если принимать решения на основе аналогии и прецедентного права (что опять же "духом" правил и в частности этих двух пунктов допускается).

Well you do realise that the so-called "rules" you quoted are about nothing. They are left to the subjective discretion of the tester-master. When it comes to"15 minutes" - it's quite an objective rule of conduct, but lost somewhere in another "official" article. You cannot see the configuration of the computer on which this"15 minutes" rule should be tested. Therefore, the parts of clause 7 of the Rules quoted by you (taking into account the dreaded words "analogy" and "case law") are perceived as nothing more than slyness.

[Yedelkin]

papaklass:

Yedelkin:
And what place did that multi-countryman take?

200 - е.

I don't even know what to say. I'd rather not say anything.

...I won't say a word out of spite, but simply because it's not interesting to fit an expert into the "15 min. == +-200th place" is not interesting at all.

[Renat Fatkhullin]

Yedelkin:

This is where I strongly disagree. The standard logic is always this: there are some rules - and then there are "official explanations" which explain these very rules. When norms of behaviour begin to be introduced not in the rules themselves, but in subordinate "official" explanations, it is a mess. Because in that case, the whole point of the Rules is lost - if many of them are reflected in some kind of bylaws.

As recently as Thursday, I was looking at the Rules regarding testing times - I found nothing of substance. On Sunday I get an announcement that I haven't read all the articles that came out after Thursday.

Come on, don't be shy!

The only thing left to blame is that we haven't written winning experts for everyone.

For the sake of some prize pennies they make you strain yourself and constantly refer you to some previous material.

[[Deleted]]

Yedelkin:

I don't even know what to say. I'd rather not say anything.

...I'd rather not say anything, not out of nastiness, but simply because it's not interesting to fit an expert into "15 min. == +-200th place" is not interesting at all.

Without going into details of the specific expert, I will say that for the mult any result that is not a disqualification is already an achievement.

I know it firsthand, because I'm interested in mults (and mostly only in mults), and I deeply understand the fact that the complexity of "good" mullet is much higher than that of monovaluator trading by the same strategy.

That's why many even very experienced developers don't always take on such projects.

[Yedelkin]

Renat:

Come on, don't be shy!

All that's left is the accusation that we haven't written winning experts for everyone.

For the sake of some prize kopecks they make you strain and constantly refer to some previous materials.

Anyway, got it, the sentence was easily turned into an accusation. Added sarcasm. - As usual, when there's no substantive response. Let's leave it at that.