0. The only thing you proved is that you can not operate AmiBroker properly. Even your own results presented in the video do not agree with results posted in your 'benchmark'.
Even your own results shows 10% difference. Not too mention that I got even bigger differences when I reproduced the test. But that's not the key point.
The keyword is "objective". Your tests are not objective. They are designed to show advantage of your product at the expense of other products
by using inefficient methods in other softwares and not comparing things that are comparable.
You are comparing single-security MC backtester to full-fledged portfolio-level backtester. These are completely two different beasts. It is like comparing motorbike to SUV. Yes you can "ride" both, but only SINGLE person can ride a motorbike.
The motorbike is your single security backtester.
The SUV is full-fledged AmiBroker portfolio-level backtester.
Because of the weight difference and different applications
motorbike (your backtester) CAN NOT be compared to SUV (AmiBroker portfolio level backtester).
What you should do is to compare motorbike (your single security backtester) to motorbike (AB old single-security backtester).
So you should be using single-secutity optimizer in AB if you want fair comparison.
Surprise - it will run 5 times faster than yours as presented in teh video that I provided.
Unfortunatelly unfair comparisions do not only apply to AB.
The same you did for Neoticker - you have used they slowest scripting interface. Why didn't you use the faster one?
So all in all the results are FAR from objective. As far from objective that they can be called "fake" because they don't represent EQUAL conditions
for all platforms under test. To create EQUAL comparison you should have ASKED THE VENDORS of software to give you GUIDELINES how to perform
tests in fair setup. You failed to do so.
Instead you have created "advertising material" that uses inaccurrate information to discriminate other products.
To address your accustations:
1. Old backtester IS AS FULL FLEDGED as yours. The only limitation of it is that it works on single-security. As yours. The truth is that you are trying to mask the fact that that your own is single-security only. You simply don't have portfolio-level backtester to compare to.
2. No it does not have any defects or errors. You are desperately trying to win the argument but you simply are left without substance. The only "defect" of old backtester is that it does not work on PORTFOLIOS of symbols. The same "defect" is present in MC.
But AmiBroker in addition to the old backtester, has NEW true portfolio-level backtester that works for portfolios (unlike yours) and can be used if user wants to backtest anything more than one security. And despite the fact that portfolio-backtesting is thousands of times more complex than single-security backtest AB portfolio-backtester is WAY faster than single-security backtester found in TS as independent benchmarks show.
3. No your tests were designed to show your advantage while you don't have any. You compared apples to oranges. It is called unfair comparative advertising. You compare things that are fundamentally different. You should have used single-security optimizer that is equivalent to your single-security optimizer.
See this:
http://www.jenkins-ip.com/mym/autumn2000/new.htm
4. Again, you are desperately trying to defend yourself. Few lines above you mentioned that you were aware of old backtester (quoting its 'defect') and few lines later saying that you weren't aware. Quite simply your benchmark is trying to show untrue picture by comparing uncomparable things. You are using unfair practices and I have nothing to appologize for. Just the opposite,
I request that you adjust your benchmark to provide the results of single-security optimization run on AMiBroker within 65 seconds which is 5+ times faster than exactly the same task with the same parameters was performed using MC.
And actually you owe me appology for your misleading advertising.
