Each adding a new layer of complexity to the field of AI. By the definition of Alan Turing, no.
Yet in all these instances the AI outperforms human intelligence by a mile, which is also part of the problem. So here comes the crux of the whole AI space probably of all of modern science. What do we mean by this? Science has become sufficiently advanced that in order to gain progress on one point you lose somewhere else. The most famous trade off is probably in computers where we trade off processing speed with processor size.
The faster you want to process the bigger the CPU. The trade off in AI is that if you want it to give you the optimal solution it will take a lot of time to process, because it has to go through each possible solution. Let us take the chess game example. Chess has roughly 7.
Taking the current 8 Ghz processors it would take roughly 60 eons to calculate one move.
So how do we deal with this? Mostly just minimizing the space trade off that the AI has to consider. Like for instance to only look 6 moves ahead it will take a split second. This method of looking at a problem is called Lagrange Relaxation, which is a fancy term for reducing the complexity of a problem in order to get to a result faster. In the study of artificial intelligence as a whole this means that we are currently not building an AI that can mimic all of the human activities, rather an AI that is really really good at one thing and hopefully applying that to new fields of study.
Taking our new found knowledge, how do we apply this to AI trading algorithms? So, I am still trading. I can only attempt this proof bit, by bit, as trading allows. So, that is sort of an acceptable level of bugs, for me. Thank you for the offer of debugging my Holy Grail.
This is free forum and everything should be for free here. So, post your EA by source code on this thread and forget about.
Anyone who has spent considerable time trading forex will tell you that there’s no “holy grail,” or one indicator, method, strategy, or system that would yield you forex trading profits % of the time. Here are three reasons why you’ll have better luck being the first. You are the Holy Grail. There is no computer software, no trading system or method that can be taught in 10 minutes that makes unlimited profits everyday.
What I am trying to state is that a trading plan is only acceptable when the rules can always profitably deal with all normal market conditions, i. As such it has to be a Holy Grail.
It has to be right all the time - with no losses, otherwise it is not an acceptable trading plan. Thus, an acceptable trading plan has valid rules for all normal market situations formulated in terms of, say, two main indicators and then the normal trend lines, support and resistance and two moving averages crossing over for confirmation signals.
Basically, what I am claiming is that a trading plan is only acceptable only when it is a Holy Grail - in theory. I do admit that normal human weaknesses various and inexperience generally result in the situation that it is generally extremely difficult for us to follow a good trading plan Holy Grail correctly. So, what I am claiming is that all actual, real, acceptable trading plans, are Holy Grails.
When a trading plan is not a Holy Grail, it is, in principle, not acceptable at all. It has to be a Holy Grail - in theory, to qualify as an acceptable trading plan.
It is the forum about Eas, trading systems, indicators and "Holy Grails". And there will be Christmas soon So, if you have "Holy Grail" - post it here and the people will be happy [i am joking Christmas will not be soon]: There certainly is a Holy Grail! To add comments, please log in or register. It is generally accepted in the trading community that there is no Holy Grail. That is a very human and absolutely normal way of dealing with the subject. It is easy to show that there is a Holy Grail as follows: I think the above explanation is correct in terms of logic. Just a suggestion - it should be written as the following: This is interesting thread -.
But as an intelectual exercise I want to understand the reason it produces those results on backtesting.
Science has become sufficiently advanced that in order to gain progress on one point you lose somewhere else. This method of looking at a problem is called Lagrange Relaxation, which is a fancy term for reducing the complexity of a problem in order to get to a result faster. This is free forum and everything should be for free here. Yet in all these instances the AI outperforms human intelligence by a mile, which is also part of the problem. Sign in Get started. The faster you want to process the bigger the CPU. Unfortunately, this also makes it difficult for traders to predict future price action.
Can you guys please educate me where is the catch. This code was writen by me but those are not the results I was expecting. As a matter of fact, I was just doing a intelectua excecise when I writed the code. The history data was dawnloaded from http: Yesterday I made