A computer can be programmed to play chess because the elements of the chess-system are readily identifiable, and their possible dynamic relationships can be modelled (comprehended) by the computer's programmer. A stock, commodity, or index, on the other hand, is a pseudo-system by way of being an epiphenomenal sub-system of the global economy and is, therefore, subject to myriad extra-systemic influences. These external influences are not quantifiable; a program cannot be written to model the true system - the entire world.
Chess is pure logic and strategy. Trading is speculating on an unknowable future. In chess, all of the variables are definable. In trading, neither their number nor their respective weight is accurately known in advance. The "if-then" logic is much looser and more fleeting/dynamic in trading. Apples and oranges.
Chess is a one vs one game. The markets are a n-player game. I don't know if there have been studies on this, but my intuition is that n-player games are quite different in nature. I know economic game theory likes to analyze n-player games as merely an extension of 2 player games, although as you go deeper, you do find that economics acknowledges that n-player games have their own special adaptive characteristics. A more simple analogy is this : if you play Counterstrike or any of the popular first person shooters on the PC, you'll know that playing against a technically superior computer bot is different from playing against a human opponent, which is in turn vastly different from playing over the internet against 20 opponents. There is an increasingly adaptive aspect as you play against human players
http://www.cs.indiana.edu/people/d/dughof.html Do you think we can get him to respond here? http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/~susan/bib/nf/h/hofstdtr.htm
Because the markets are dynamic and every trade the computer program would make would change the markets.
Market's boring today. I come to distract here haha ! Already answered here: http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=332280&highlight=chess#post332280 "a large percentage of trading volume on the Nyse comes solely from automated trading. It only concerns firms but probably more and more traders will join automatic trading. Even if you are not for competition will force you. Antropomorphic vision is always blinding so remember that a dumb machine has beaten Kasparov at Chess: http://www.gamesdomain.com/gdreview/depart/may97/craig.html Exerpt: "The chess-playing community is also shell-shocked. Some are convinced that Kasparov took a payoff to lose the game on purpose to generate more interest in Deep Blue. Others say that Kasparov's style played right into Deep Blue's hands and that Karpov would not fall into that trap. Or that if he'd simply tried harder he'd have won. Yet the fact is there that he lost, and lost for the first time in his life. Kasparov could not psych out his emotionless opponent; opposite him sat one of the IBM team. Deep Blue hummed away in another room, distanced from the action. Nor could Kasparov attack the weaknesses in his opponent's style of play, for Deep Blue has no style, and if anything represents a hybrid of many observed styles. Kasparov is rumoured to have practised against a number of computer opponents to try to get a feel for the style he'd face, but if anything that probably did more harm than good. Inevitably the odds were stacked against the unfortunate human sacrifice, and Deep Blue accepted the offering in cold blood. The bottom line is that the number crunching ability of the 32-node IBM "supercomputer" has finally outweighed the natural ability of the best human player."
Funny how many different views exist in a market. I think the market is kicking ass today Several very juicy plays today. peace axeman
There are "juicy plays" everyday, why should today be any different? edit: This is my best "dbphoenix" impersonation