Author: Albert Silver
Date: 11:14:52 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
>Well I wouldn't be able to pass if I turned that in as my masters project.
>So if it isn't good enough to pass, then in my book it's junk, what else should
>I call it?
>
>In a different light, as a tutorial for chess, it is a great assembly of
>information, no argument there.
>
>Depends on how you look at it, it just doesn't meet the *standard* _I_ would
>expect of a thesis (of course what my standard is must be rather irrelevant to
>most people here).
>
>If _your_ standard is lower (or perhaps you simply have no idea what to expect
>of a thesis, perhaps you were even thrilled you could understand it:), then it
>doesn't have to be junk in your eyes, of course.
I think the term *lower* is poorly chosen. I think that one should avoid
describing something as bad simply because it is different. I'm writing this
note fairly late in the debate, and have taken the time to read all the
contributed posts, including the fencing with Mogens on Danish academic
standards. It is clear that you believe something new must be contributed to the
area by the thesis, as opposed to other standards which decry demonstration of
mastery (hence the term Master) in the field as the necessary requirement. This
can be achieved in the US in many institutions, as explained by Hyatt among
others, by even 'mere' course taking. Presumably, merely taking and passing
these advanced courses is sufficient demonstration of mastery.
I myself have not read the paper yet, though I just downloaded it and plan to do
so in the near future. It has been described as astonishingly clear in its
layout of material, and almost uniquely so, covering the entire gamut of
elements that constitute a modern chess program. Some have claimed that certain
actual technical aspwects were new, but I am not capable of judging that. I
would like to add that IMHO if it does indeed fulfil the promise of
exhaustiveness and newfound clarity, then I see no reason whatsoever to not
consider _that_ to be a new and extremely *valuable* contribution to the field.
Uri said much the same thing, though prescribed it as being even more valuable
than new technical advancements, which I'm not sure I'd go so far in declaring.
IMO to be able to do so for such a field, not only demonstrates mastery, but
also contributes better and faster dissemination of its knowledge to others.
Suppose you had to study all the book describes and even had all the technical
material to do so, yet to understand it, it took you TWICE as long. Would you
not consider a work that cut that in half as being valuable and demonstrative of
mastery, where all other contributers failed?
Albert
>
>>Science is about being able to use the theory in a
>>practical model and then maybe come to new conclusions, although i think the
>>conclusion part would be a bit arrogant for a graduating student.
>>Anyway, I would sure look carefully a any new conclusions that are written in a
>>masters thesis before I take it for granted. But I agree with most people here
>>that the above thesis is quite interesting.
>>
>>Maybe some of us had a bit a bad day?
>
>Yes, most certainly ;)
>
>-S.
>
>
>>Andy
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.