Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 71
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
You were talking about sclerosis, Andrei... Let's remember how it was.
1. This branch has been rebooted. Remember - at one point it was impossible to communicate here. The thread was "choking". There was a lot of flooding. The moderators erased all the pages and we started again. We began to communicate freely on the topic without any interruptions. The discussion was "protected" by them. Up until now, our discussion had been on topic only.2. Are you tired of fighting slander, accusations and provocations? Give me quotes from this thread where slander, accusations and provocations were made on the part of the participants. And the fact that you were asked to explain a lot - was inevitable - as you started the championship with the participation of people not familiar with the subject.
3. By making FF codes, setting the rules, and solving technical problems on your own, you were the one who set the rules. You were an organizer and a participant at the same time. So you could set the rules to your liking, and no one could prevent this, as you could be excluded from the championship. I tried to put important issues to a vote, so that other proposals were properly considered by all participants.4. Why didn't you mention me as one of your assistants? - The person who defended your championship in the most desperate way? During all the threads and up to the present moment I have been trying to make the championship take place, even if without the prize, even if with a minimum number of participants and even in spite of you (because you have already said goodbye to it).
5. We have not yet come to the stage of joint FF formation. We were discussing the connection method proposed by Vasili. Remember your post (I can quote): ".Due to the commencement of unrest among the participants we are passing to the forming stage of the FF".. I had a feeling that in order to stop discussing Vasiliy's connection method, you abruptly jumped to another stage. By the way, without asking anyone.6. Why did MQ representatives have to come if we have not sorted things out amongst ourselves? There was no agreement between us and there was no need for them to come. They gave you support by announcing a prize fund of 3000 dollars. That's some support, huh...?
7. Well, about you not blaming anyone, it's just the opposite. The only person you're not bl aming is you. We don't need any support from moderators other than protecting us from flooding. And that's what they provide us.
8. Excessive emotions and paranoid fantasies caused by fatigue and stress. Get some rest and everything will seem different.
1. There was no "reset". The first thread was a poll and this one is a championship thread. But for some reason you and others keep talking about some "failure" in the poll thread. The provocations and accusations continued here just like in the poll thread.
2. I willingly explained, if the questions were related to the championship and theoretical issues. I didn't invite people unfamiliar with the topic, I warned them not to get an easy or random win, and invited those who claimed in the poll that they had an algorithm, which implies the necessary knowledge. But most active were those who do not know anything about optimization.
3. Here again - the accusations against me. I spoke in favor of invariability of the rules and defended them. Only an independent sponsor and the MQ judges could have changed them before the start of the championship. The rules were designed so that nobody would have an advantage, to protect the intellectual property of the participants and to ensure transparency in determining the winners. If there were any questions about the running of the event, I would answer them. But an attempt to "put the rules to a vote" is nothing more than participants adjusting the conditions "to themselves", which is not acceptable. Personally, I am not interested in money prizes, I just needed a confirmation of the successes I have achieved in my development and theoretical research, and nothing can confirm the success and the quality of the algorithm better than a comparison with other analogs - a contest or a championship is the best solution for this.
4. Just you were an ardent advocate of changing the rules and conditions, appealing to "universal equality" and "right of speech" you tried to change the rules and codes of test scripts. Of course, you are very interested in the championship (reasons can vary), but instead of understanding the theoretical issues, tried to accuse me of that I "poorly explain" the theory that I generally should not do, because the championship is held for trained participants, not for those who dropped in for a "light".
5. Just came. Just before that I was explaining how the FF would be formed. And yes, to divert the attention of the participants from the useless 'suggestions of code variants' to what was actually planned and needed to be done within the championship just to ensure that no one has an advantage and to ensure transparency of the championship and the results."By the way, without asking anyone" - that just do not need to do in any case in the competition in order not to slip into fitting the competition for everyone and for everyone.
6. What kind of agreement "between us" are you always talking about? There are rules, they have to be respected. Or will you also tell the law enforcement agencies that the laws were made without your participation and should be revised? And the 3000 is not a support, but an incentive for participants to get people excited. And "support" is defending the rules of the championship, defending against accusations against the organiser, ensuring order and justice. With active participation of MQ in the discussions, it would be different, but it's a daisy-chase of "like"/"dislike", "redo the rules"/"not redo the rules".
7. My fault - the whole idea and conduct of the championship by me personally. Many people can not even think that someone else can and conduct such events. Human envy, anger, suspicion towards such events held by one person are doing their destructive work, I cannot resist it, and my fault - I have stirred up these "demons" in people. I should have asked MQ to organize the championships and the rules from the start, then people wouldn't have the feeling that I'm unfairly different from them.
8 I'm only human and nothing human is alien to me. I am not an iron man and I can be led away emotionally, which is exactly what a lot of people used to do. I can still inspire and informational support the championship, but I also need support - moral and just friendly.
Andrey Dik:
1. There has been a reboot of this thread. Pages were erased and we started the discussion again. (Let's ask the moderators, shall we?)
2. I can cite several quotes where you blatantly called out people who told you they understood next to nothing about the topic. Including me, after I frankly said I overestimated my powers and didn't understand the point of the challenge. Shall I bring it up?
3. You have argued for the immutability of your rules. How fair that is (with you being a member), let others judge...
4. I was arguing for the participants to have the right to decide technical issues together. I challenged your sole supremacy because you are also a participant in the championship. Just because you couldn't find a way to share the role of participant and organizer, doesn't mean that everyone had to put up with the outright advantage that such a role gave you.
5. Here you go again, deciding for everyone...
6. There are your rules. They must be respected if you Not a member... championship. If you are a championship participant, your rules can only be a suggestion. Otherwise, everyone has to put up with your advantage.
7. About demons in people - Demons in who? The participants in your championship? Maybe in me?
8. If you are the ideological inspirer, why say that you did not have to explain anything to anyone, and complain that they ask you 100 times?
1. There has been a reboot of this thread. Pages were erased and we started the discussion again. (Let's ask the moderators, shall we?)
2. I can cite several quotes where you blatantly called out people who told you they understood next to nothing about the subject. Including me, after I sincerely told you that I overestimated my strength and didn't get the gist of the task. Shall I bring it up?
3. You have argued for the immutability of your rules. How fair that is (with you being a member), let others judge...
4. I was arguing for the participants to have the right to decide technical issues together. I challenged your sole supremacy because you are also a participant in the championship. Just because you couldn't find a way to share the role of participant and organizer, doesn't mean that everyone had to put up with the outright advantage that such a role gave you.
5. Here you go again, deciding for everyone...
6. There are your rules. They must be respected if you Not a participant championship. If you are a championship participant, your rules can only be a suggestion. Otherwise, everyone has to put up with your advantage.
7. About demons in people - Demons in who? The participants in your championship? Maybe in me?
8. If you are the ideological inspirer, why say that you did not have to explain anything to anyone, and complain that they ask you 100 times?
Think what you want. It will not change the situation. I have better things to do than make excuses or defend my opinion after trying to run an interesting event for people.
You've started your own championship thread - how's that going? Why not channel your enthusiasm into your own initiatives instead of "muddying the waters" in other people's? Gather the people, get them interested, make sure they are giving only constructive speeches and stay clean in the eyes of the people. I hope you can do what I failed to do.
Andrey Dik:
I am tired of fighting slander, accusations, provocations.
Provide citations for slander and provocation on the part of participants. Otherwise, this statement is a slander and provocation in itself.
The best solution would be for me not to associate with people I don't like. And you won't be good for everyone, I'm becoming more and more convinced of that. Flip through the pages, read at least what you wrote, it would be enough to understand, and at the same time put yourself in my shoes if you can.
ZS. Talk less but do more. Solve first the problems that have sounded here, gain experience and become competent, if you want to compete in a field of knowledge about optimization algorithms.
... and put yourself in my shoes if you can.
Putting yourself in your shoes is extremely difficult.
You have to know how to do it - to screw up an unprecedented $3,000 prize fund support for the MC.
And the panelists -- even the provocateurs, as you put it -- have nothing to do with it. The fish always rot off the head. You are the organizer, you are the one who is to blame, it is your organization.
As an example, that no one bothered you -- this thread -- at least 30 pages (300 posts), until you already began to flub with each other -- no outsiders, no provocateurs in the thread.
So it was you yourself who botched your own endeavor.
Putting yourself in your shoes is extremely difficult.
You have to know how to do it - to screw up an unprecedented $3,000 prize fund support for the MC.
And the panelists -- even the provocateurs, as you put it -- have nothing to do with it. The fish always rots from the head. You are the organizer, you are the one who is to blame, it is your organization.
As an example, that no one bothered you -- this thread -- at least 30 pages (300 posts), until you already began to flub with each other -- no outsiders, no provocateurs in the thread.
So it was you yourself who botched your own endeavor.
What are you doing in this thread? What is your purpose?
Don't say "I go where I want, comment on who I want". Specifically, what is the purpose of this particular thread? What is the reason you are paying so much attention to me? If you are in love (I have no other plausible explanation) - then I'm sorry, I'm not interested in you as a woman.
..... If you are in love (I have no other plausible explanation) - sorry, I am not interested in you as a woman.
You are the one who is being rude, and you are so chic that you have been trolled by trolls.
You are not touched by anyone, do not flatter yourself about your person and think about removing the crown.
You've caught a star.
You're the one who's being rude, but you've been so chic about being trolled here.
This is not rudeness, but a warning that if you have something to say, it should be business.
Do you have anything to say on the matter? Do you have an algorithm for the championship? Can you help me in the difficult task of educating Peter in matters of optimization? Or maybe you have already solved the problem with the text? - No, go ahead, we have enough fun here without you.