Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 11:23:48 08/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 20, 2002 at 14:07:27, Dann Corbit wrote: >I agree with GCP, and I also think that we should not be expecting radical new >algorithms or some kind of magic from a Master's thesis. Sure, it's a rehash of >known techniques. But the author is (I think) a *very good teacher* as far as >explaining things. > >Let me go further... > >I really, really, wish I had this document at my disposal when I *first* started >learning about computer chess. It would have saved me about TWO YEARS of >effort. > >His writing is clear and understandable. The document has excellent >organization. > >For someone who wants to learn how to write a chess program: >THIS DOCUMENT is better than ANYTHING ELSE for a new beginner. It won't teach >you some kind of magical excellence where suddenly you can pop off an engine >that is clobbering Chess Tiger, Fritz and Junior. But it will show you all the >necessary techniques and ideas to write a good, solid chess engine. What is >more, it explains how they work and why they work in such an easy to understand >manner that *anyone* can grasp it. Personally, I think that is a form of >genius. For example, read Albert Einstein's notebooks. He talks about men in >elevators and guys walking on trains. Simple, clear illustrations that anyone >can understand. If you read Einstein's explanation of relativity, a 12 year old >can understand it. This ability to communicate a difficult subject in a clear >and comprehensible manner is a rare talent. The very fact that reading his >thesis is like reading "Dick and Jane" is actually demonstrating its excellence >rather than showing some sort of lack. > >Once again, his thesis is an excellent piece of work and something to be proud >of. I expect that many new chess engines will get a very good start because of >what he has done. I agree with you Dann. Let me ask a question. Isn't the point of a master's thesis to contribute to the body of knowledge? Perhaps there is no ground breaking new material in this thesis, but I think this paper does contribute to the body of knowledge in this field because while all of this material might exist in other papers or sources, it might also take a couple of years (as you pointed out) to hunt down all of the information and then study it. Even then you might not be able to find all of the sources you need. So, what exactly is the goal of a master's thesis? I think this is the question we should be asking in light of the disagreements about this thesis. For example, just because many people go above and beyond the requirements in their master's thesis doesn't change the requirements. Just because many other master's thesis' have been much better than this one (IYHO) doesn't have anything to do with whether or not this is a master's thesis. Russell
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.