Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 61
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
Why are the range numbers fractional? Instead of -10.0 to 10 in increments of 0.1, you can go from -100 to 100, in increments of 1.
Why are the numbers in the range fractional? Instead of range from -10.0 to 10 with step 0.1, you can use range from -100 to 100 with step 1.
I chose 200 steps because this is enough for practical problems, if it is not, then the "scale" and "plot" of the function being studied is wrong, so 200 steps. See also the explanations below.
Depends on FF formula. If it containsnatural logarithms, numbers e, pi, you need to have fractional part with at least two digits after decimal point.
This is partly true. The FF can scale parameters within its range, e.g. scale the range [-10.0; 10.0] in 0.1 steps to the range e.g. [-50.0; 50.0] in 0.5 steps, you would get the same 200 steps, and give as a rule for participants [-50.0; 50.0] in 0.5 steps.
If the participant algorithm can only handle integers, then it can scale the generated values to the desired FF range.
It is just more convenient visually, than for example such range of parameters [-13312.34;13312.34] with step 133.1234. Although, you should have chosen such a range for the championship, for fun, and for "to be asked".
If the algorithm can work with double numbers (or conversion and scaling from integers is provided), then it should be able to work with all real numbers, but range [-10.0; 10.0] with step 0.1 was chosen for the Championship, and full stop.
So you single-handedly define the details, the rules, the connection interface... What about the others? Should we discuss it together? Vote? Otherwise, you have a distinct advantage... If you think others are not knowledgeable enough to discuss tech. Why compete with them? I mean that it is not you who put a point, but all participants, after the agreement.
Yes, we need that one or (a group of friends behind the scenes) would have defined the rules and interface. If there will be democracy, we will get bogged down in procedural questions, we will fall apart and nothing will work. I'm waiting for an agreed interface.
Yuri, I don't quite understand your position. I propose that technical issues should be discussed jointly, not decided solely by the organizer.
The organizer had 8 years to prepare the algorithm, you and I have only a few weeks. If the organizer himself decides all the issues, how do we know that he won't solve them in his favor?
He uses the accumulated knowledge and a ready-made algorithm, and invites you and me to the championship, who have only recently barely understood the essence of the task (I managed it with great difficulty, although the organizer was able to quickly explain what was what, without any fog). Isn't it too much of an advantage for the organizer?
Why rush to hold the championship, if people are just beginning to get acquainted with the subject? So that those who understand (two people) had time to "make a buck"? Let them give us a chance...
I propose to discuss all technical details together and jointly decide on all issues by voting.
I liked the connection interface Vasily. Everything is clear and straightforward. Everything is commented upon. I propose to vote for his option and change the range of numbers and pitch. (So that those who have had a ready algorithm for years would not have such an obvious advantage over us, beginners.) If they are masters of their craft, they will rework their algorithm for a different range. The game will be fairer.
So, you single-handedly define the details, the rules, the connection interface... But what about the others? Maybe we should discuss it together? Vote? Otherwise, you have a distinct advantage... If you think others are not knowledgeable enough to discuss tech. Why compete with them? I mean, it's not you who put a point, but all the participants, after the agreement.
You are talking nonsense. You come to the championship and try to re-do the rules. Do you want me, as the organiser, to delegate to you the authority to assign the parameter range and pitch? - Then I'll look at you when we move on to discussing and selecting FFs.... It was the discussion and assignment of the FF that was originally planned with the participants, I may even give up my FF proposal entirely (already described how the FF would be formed). I assure you I have no advantages, but I have taken on all the technical issues of running the championship, saving you a lot of trouble.
Yes it is necessary that one or (a group of comrades behind the scenes) would define the rules and interface. If there is democracy, we'll get bogged down in procedural questions, we'll fall apart and nothing will work. I'm waiting for an agreed interface.
I have already taken a step towards the participants discussing the topic of optimization, revealing misunderstandings in theory. The interface is consistent. You have seen examples of connecting algorithms via function import. Files on file storage will be available today/tomorrow.
Yuri, not quite understand your position. I propose that technical issues should be discussed jointly, rather than decided solely by the organizer.
The organizer had 8 years to prepare the algorithm, you and I have only a few weeks. If the organizer himself decides all the issues, how do we know that he won't solve them in his favor?
He uses the accumulated knowledge and a ready-made algorithm, and invites you and me to the championship, who have only recently barely understood the essence of the task (I managed it with great difficulty, although the organizer was able to quickly explain what was what, without any fog). Isn't it too much of an advantage for the organizer?
Why rush to hold the championship, if people are just beginning to get acquainted with the subject? So that those who understand (two people) had time to "make a fortune"? Let them leave us a chance...
I propose to discuss all technical details together and jointly decide on all issues by voting.
I liked the connection interface Vasily. Everything is clear and straightforward. Everything is commented upon. I propose to vote for his option and change the range of numbers and pitch. (So that those who have had a ready algorithm for years would not have such an obvious advantage over us, beginners.) If they are masters of their craft, they will rework their algorithm for a different range. The game will be fairer.
Yuri, I don't quite understand your position. I propose that technical issues should be discussed jointly, not decided by the organizer alone.
The organizer has had 8 years to prepare an algorithm, you and I have only a few weeks. If the organizer himself decides all the issues, how do we know that he won't solve them in his favor?
He uses the accumulated knowledge and a ready-made algorithm, and invites you and me to the championship, who have only recently barely understood the essence of the task (I managed it with great difficulty, although the organizer was able to quickly explain what was what, without any fog). Isn't it too much of an advantage for the organizer?
Why rush to hold the championship, if people are just beginning to get acquainted with the subject? So that those who understand (two people) had time to "make a buck"? Let them give us a chance...
I propose to discuss all technical details together and jointly decide on all issues by voting.
I liked the connection interface Vasily. Everything is clear and straightforward. Everything is commented upon. I propose to vote for his variant and change the range of numbers and pitch. (So that those who have had a ready algorithm for years would not have such an obvious advantage over us, beginners.) If they are masters of their craft, they will rework their algorithm for a different range. The game will be fairer.
Do you even realize what you are saying?
It is the organizers who have always decided and made the rules. That is why they are the organizers. The organizers, of course, always have the advantage. They not only make the rules, but also check and distribute prizes. That's why organizers never take part in contests. In our case, the organizers do. But that's part of the rules. That's whatAndrey Dik said from the beginning. He initially said that the purpose of the contest was to compare his "best algorithm" with algorithms of the participants.
If you're bad with the material -- there are usually prizes for such participants. But to be initially bad at something and claim the first place is not even funny.
And rightly saidYuri Evseenkov-- that it is necessary "between each other" to sort out the rules, to prepare everything, to solve everything -- post the final version, announce the contest and stop all the a la-democratic discussion of the rules. Otherwise, people just get confused and stop understanding what should be done and what it is all about.
Yuri, I don't quite understand your position. I propose that technical issues should be discussed jointly, rather than decided by the organizer alone.
The organizer had 8 years to prepare the algorithm, you and I have only a few weeks. If the organizer himself decides all the issues, how do we know that he won't solve them in his favor?
He uses the accumulated knowledge and a ready-made algorithm, and invites you and me to the championship, who have only recently barely understood the essence of the task (I managed it with great difficulty, although the organizer was able to quickly explain what was what, without any fog). Isn't it too much of an advantage for the organizer?
Why rush to hold the championship, if people are just beginning to get acquainted with the subject? So that those who understand (two people) had time to "make a buck"? Let them leave us a chance...
I propose to discuss all technical details together and jointly decide on all issues by voting.
I liked the connection interface Vasily. Everything is clear and straightforward. Everything is commented upon. I propose to vote for his variant and change the range of numbers and pitch. (So that those who have had a ready algorithm for years would not have such an obvious advantage over us, beginners.) If they are masters of their craft, they will rework their algorithm for a different range. The game will be fairer.
My attitude is to treat strangers positively a priori. As long as they have not been deceived by action or inaction. Verbal abuse doesn't count.
So I assume the organizer and associates have good intentions. But enthusiasm is running low. Look. It's been a long time, and the list of participants is very short. Yesterday, a strong contender left. Besides the two of us, two or three other contestants are active. The contest itself is in question.
About to make money. So no one dough, at least there is no official confirmation of the prize. My participation is to familiarize myself with optimization algorithms in real-life situations.
About interfaces. How can I define which one is better and which one is worse? Perhaps Vasiliy's interface looks friendlier to me. But I can't say that it is better in other respects - I don't know. We have to let them decide in private and come up with an agreed upon version. Time is running out. It still needs to be tested.
Let's accept the rules of the game ( whether they are bad or good).