Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 16:19:24 08/22/02
Go up one level in this thread
On August 22, 2002 at 16:00:00, Sune Fischer wrote: >barely? common knowledge I think... Apparently not. >Where did I do that? >Please do not put word in my mouth! More than once you've used derogatory descriptions of the work in question, while referring to your work in progress as a yard stick. That combined with the continued refusal of admitting that a similar methodology is possible here. You may call my approach a "critical literary study". No original science (fiction), sorry. >In a literary study, yes. >Explaing what alpha-beta does isn't a literary study, it is simple background >information for the reader - there is a distinction to be made, something you >seem extremely careless about, whether you this deliberately or unintentionally >is anyones guess. There's nothing unusual about background information. It's usually placed in the thesis study report, unless it's deemed necessary to include in the actual thesis for various reasons. And I still refrain from judging the quality. Too many grim examples in this thread already. >Then you should not have "diverted attention to avoid the main topic", which was >evaluation, not form. Nope. I specifically reacted to your comment about form. >Your views has been no more substantiated, other than a lose comment about >"critical literary study", which has nothing to do with the paper in discussion, >you have provided nill to dismantle my opinion which has a solid foundation in >practical experience and citations plus links posted here numerous times. The generously repeated link doesn't argue your case, I'm afraid. Quite the opposite. >Well I certainly wouldn't call you a narcissistic ignorant, although that >wouldn't be too far off either. So shall we dispense with the name calling? You can use any words your heart desire. >It clarifies nothing, contributs nothing, it is completely irrelevant. Nope. Not in the context it appears. >I think you just snapped.... There are two points: 1) The methodology. 2) Execution of methodology. (1) can be correct, but (2) might be a failure. That doesn't discredit (1) as a thesis instrument. I cannot explain it in simpler terms. Regards, Mogens
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.