Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:47:28 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 14:14:52, Albert Silver wrote: >>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. There is a misunderstanding. I did not mean to say that explaining is more valuable than new technical advancement but only to say that it is better to increase the importance of explaining and to reduce the relative importance of discovering new things. Uri
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.