Algorithm Optimisation Championship. - page 89
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
No, not because of responsibility. It's because there are no rules. Unambiguous and clear to everyone. That anyone but you agrees with.
I don't care about the number of participants, I'll spend a little more time.
All right.
What rules are you worried about? What exactly is unclear - we'll figure it out now.
Okay.
What rules are you worried about? What is it that you don't understand - we'll get to the bottom of it.
Why? Just the results table isn't enough anymore?
What's not clear - you need to ask the participants. I made my comments somewhere in the process.
But if we start doing it now, it will take another 150 pages. We'll start just in September.)
Let all the spectators be the judges at once. In my opinion, this is the best option.
Let's display our libraries/scripts in compiled form. Let's show the library with FF. Everyone will be able to download and check the results. We will immediately see who is the winner.
The only question is, - who will generate the FF key?
I am inclined to think that it really should be a neutral person, perhaps a representative of MQ, on whom one can rely.
Who he is - I don't know.
Let's think about it.
Why? Just a results table is not enough anymore?
What is not clear should be asked of the participants. I have made my comments somewhere in the process.
But if we start doing it now, it will take another 150 pages. Just in time for September and will start).
You are talking about lack of rules. So you do not understand the procedure of testing. Tell us what you don't understand - we'll make it clear. We will try to be brief (hope, that the self amusing personalities will not overload a branch to 150 pages additionally).
The results table will be sufficient to determine the winner.
You do not like the candidacy ofAndrey Khatimlianskii as an independent tester? But you are against restrictions in FF, and without restrictions I personally cannot put the algorithm in the public domain (some time ago the rights for the algorithm were sold, the second owner is against it), so only to a proven independent tester. And MQ have shown no desire to run tests.
OK, let's make restrictions in FF that make it impossible for third parties to use a member's algorithm for their own purposes. If the constraint is range and step, then let them be different than the ones you proposed earlier (from -10 to 10, in 0.1 increments).
I have nothing against Andrey Khatimlianskii, but where and when did he prove himself as a reliable and independent tester?
In my opinion, the referee should be a representative of MQ.
Well, let's make restrictions in FF, so that third parties can't use the participant's algorithm for their own purposes. If range and step are restrictions, then let them be different than the ones you proposed earlier (from -10 to 10, in 0.1 increments).
I have nothing against Andrey Khatimlianskii, but where and when did he prove himself as a reliable and independent tester?
In my opinion, the referee should be a representative of MQ.
One day you don't need a referee at all, the next you need a MC, so fuck off, both of you, then forget everything. One blames the other for the fact that you can do it without MCs, and now it's the other way round.
No wonder the MCs don't even get involved in this nonsense.
One day you don't need a referee at all, the next you need a MC, so fuck off, both of you, then forget everything. One blames the other for not having an MC, and now it's the other way around.
The referee is needed to generate the FF key. The most neutral may be an MQ representative. Perhaps there are other reputable users I can trust. I don't see a problem with that.
So suggest a list of your candidates, he will suggest his own, there will be overlap-will be the bottom line. Why all the daisies.
Well from MQ for the role of referee, I would suggest any moderator who would agree, and among the authoritative users Anatoli Kazharski , who I believe can be trusted.
Since I'm a newcomer to the community, I do not know many. Perhaps there are still famous and neutral people who we can entrust with this role. (If they agree).
OK, let's make restrictions in FF that make it impossible for third parties to use a participant's algorithm for their own purposes. If the constraints are range and step, then let them be different than the ones you proposed earlier (from -10 to 10, in 0.1 steps).
I have nothing against Andrey Khatimlianskii, but where and when did he prove himself as a reliable and independent tester?
In my opinion, the referee should be a representative of MQ.
What don't you like about this range?! What do you think it should be? And why can't someone else demand that it be changed in the same way?
You change your opinions and demands to the exact opposite almost every day.
I have explained that with protection, it can be freely accessed, without protection, only in the hands of a trusted person.
If it is freely accessible, who will make the table? You do not trust me, you do not trustKhatimlianskii either. What is the problem for you to test algorithms without restrictions in the hands of a trusted tester?