If no one from the MetaQuotes administration shows up here before 11 July, the championship will not be possible, as the FF generation procedure for the championship will not be carried out without them.
Now let's see what the regular tester is capable of in the text problem, the optimization conditions are the same as in the presented code - the text has not changed, i.e. 49 letters.
2016.06.29 02:15:16 Statistics optimization done in 1 minutes 18 seconds
2016.06.29 02:15:16 Tester genetic optimization finished on pass 23552
Optimization finished with best result 35 (that many letters the optimizer could correctly name out of 49).
Since there is no option to adjust number of passes/runs of FF in the standard tester, I have to run my algorithm with the same number of FF runs if I want to compare my algorithm with the standard one.
My result:
2016.06.29 02:27:30.817 Script OAC Dik (GBPUSD,H1) Time: 475397 µs; 0.47539700 c
2016.06.29 02:27:30.817 Script OAC Dik (GBPUSD,H1) FF Runs: 23552
2016.06.29 02:27:30.817 Script OAC Dik (GBPUSD,H1) Max: 42.00000000
Although, the tester was optimizing on 4 cores and my script on 1 core, but I got the result 100+ times faster by time.
Here is the text of the Expert Advisor for testing the in-house optimizer in the task about the text:
Of course, and I'm sure of it, if you run optimization in the tester several times to be sure of the results, you'll probably get better results. But I'm honestly too lazy to clean the cache a hundred times and wait so long. But if someone has plenty of time - can pay off a few times and get the average reliable result staff optimizer.
To be honest, I'm surprised with the results of in-house optimizer. I expected to see much worse results (no offense to MQ), because it uses binary GA. Let me remind you, it's a very complicated task, not only do I need to pick the best option out of innumerable options for a limited number of runs, but FF is a discrete surface where the algorithm can't get a foothold.
ZZZI:
"reako-scientific article zhovataye zhevataye mt'yuipa" - this was collected by a staff tester
"seldom a scientific paper combines these two types" - and this is the text of the task.
ZZZI. attached *.set file of advisor with better result.
Been on holiday. Where is the post with the final connection files attached and options (1 and 2) and preferably an argument as to why option 2 is needed?
Since the disadvantage of this option I wrote earlier and did not get an answer
В примере библиотеки участника по 2-му есть импорт FF и в скрипте запуска и в библиотеке участника. Но если я пришлю ex файл, какой путь импорта ff туда зашивать? Как запускать на другой FF? Не продумано.
Thought this question will be solved by the participants when I'm gone (
Been on holiday. Where is the post with the final connection files attached and options (1 and 2) and preferably an argument as to why option 2 is needed?
Since the disadvantage of this option I wrote earlier and did not get an answer
Thought the issue will be resolved by the participants when I'm gone (
Use connection method by 2nd variant. Some participants believe that there is a lot of work to remake their algorithms for the 1-st variant. While we can easily make any algorithm for variant 2. Therefore this issue is settled.
Disadvantage of the 2nd option in a different way, but in the championship it is acceptable.
Now let's see what the regular tester is capable of in the text problem, the optimization conditions are the same as in the presented code - the text has not changed, i.e. 49 letters.
ZS. I have found, in my opinion, improper work of EA with library in the tester, I will report in error thread.
2016.06.29 02:15:16 Statistics optimization done in 1 minutes 18 seconds
2016.06.29 02:15:16 Tester genetic optimization finished on pass 23552
Optimization finished with best result 35 (that many letters the optimizer could correctly name out of 49).
Since there is no option to adjust number of passes/runs of FF in the standard tester, I have to run my algorithm with the same number of FF runs if I want to compare my algorithm with the standard one.
My result:
2016.06.29 02:27:30.817 Script OAC Dik (GBPUSD,H1) Time: 475397 µs; 0.47539700 c
2016.06.29 02:27:30.817 Script OAC Dik (GBPUSD,H1) FF Runs: 23552
2016.06.29 02:27:30.817 Script OAC Dik (GBPUSD,H1) Max: 42.00000000
Although, the tester was optimizing on 4 cores and my script on 1 core, but I got the result 100+ times faster by time.
Here is the text of the Expert Advisor for testing the in-house optimizer in the task about the text:
Of course, and I'm sure of it, if you run optimization in the tester several times to be sure of the results, you'll probably get better results. But I'm honestly too lazy to clean the cache a hundred times and wait so long. But if someone has plenty of time - can pay off a few times and get the average reliable result staff optimizer.
To be honest, I'm surprised with the results of in-house optimizer. I expected to see much worse results (no offense to MQ), because it uses binary GA. Let me remind you, it's a very complicated task, not only do I need to pick the best option out of innumerable options for a limited number of runs, but FF is a discrete surface where the algorithm can't get a foothold.
ZZZI:
"reako-scientific article zhovataye zhevataye mt'yuipa" - this was collected by a staff tester
"seldom a scientific paper combines these two types" - and this is the text of the task.
ZZZI. attached *.set file of advisor with better result.
Been on holiday. Where is the post with the final connection files attached and options (1 and 2) and preferably an argument as to why option 2 is needed?
Since the disadvantage of this option I wrote earlier and did not get an answer
В примере библиотеки участника по 2-му есть импорт FF и в скрипте запуска и в библиотеке участника. Но если я пришлю ex файл, какой путь импорта ff туда зашивать? Как запускать на другой FF? Не продумано.
Thought this question will be solved by the participants when I'm gone (
Been on holiday. Where is the post with the final connection files attached and options (1 and 2) and preferably an argument as to why option 2 is needed?
Since the disadvantage of this option I wrote earlier and did not get an answer
Thought the issue will be resolved by the participants when I'm gone (
Oh, man, everyone's all torn up and scattered.