Yale 250. This shouldn't be hard. And yet...

(Personal Statement Examples, Advice, Critique, . . . )
TheTallOne0602
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:53 pm

Yale 250. This shouldn't be hard. And yet...

Postby TheTallOne0602 » Wed Nov 10, 2010 9:22 pm

For some reason, I cannot think of a topic upon which to write when it comes to the Yale 250 word essay. I wrote this in a fit of frustration. It isn't the best thing I have ever written, but it is something, anyway. Let me know if you guys think it is worth working this one over or whether I should just start from scratch.

(Note: I haven't really edited this one yet, since I don't feel like putting more work into it than necessary if it sounds inane. Having written too many of these which did sound inane over the last few days, they are all starting to seem absurd to me. If anyone disagrees regarding this particular one, I will spend time making it better. At the moment I just need general feedback. And sleep. And maybe a psychiatrist.)

The popularity of chess has always been mercurial; the dignity of chess, however, has only recently come under attack, as computers supposedly threaten the very usefulness of the game.

It is true that computers are already on par with the best players in the world. Whereas even a child prodigy must devote years to becoming truly great, it now takes only a group of programmers to create a machine capable of challenging world champions. But claiming this is the end of chess is tantamount to claiming that the Olympics are meaningless because machines can lift more, move faster and fly higher than humans. Chess is a contest and also a struggle. Computers might be able to win the contest, but they cannot struggle, anymore than a forklift or a racecar can.

Vladimir Kramnik, one of the great chess players of all time, once failed to see a mate-in-one-move that allowed his opponent—ironically, a computer—to win a highly publicized game. Yet that very blunder speaks not to the irrelevance of chess in the age of computers, but to the necessity of chess in such an age. It is Kramnik’s humanity that reminds us: prodigy and perfection are not equivalent. When Kramnik defeated the very same computer in the previous game, it was all the more spectacular because he was very capable of not defeating it. As long as this needs remembering, chess will have a place among mankind’s artful pursuits.

TheTallOne0602
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:53 pm

Re: Yale 250. This shouldn't be hard. And yet...

Postby TheTallOne0602 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 9:46 am

Is this the wrong forum? I can move it if so... Wasn't sure where to put it.

WhirledWorld
Posts: 331
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2010 11:04 am

Re: Yale 250. This shouldn't be hard. And yet...

Postby WhirledWorld » Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:30 pm

.
Last edited by WhirledWorld on Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

play2win
Posts: 55
Joined: Mon Oct 11, 2010 6:27 pm

Re: Yale 250. This shouldn't be hard. And yet...

Postby play2win » Thu Nov 11, 2010 1:45 pm

As an ardent chess fan, "drawnik" is not at the top of my favorite's list. To declare Kramnik the greatest over the likes of Capa, Alekhine, Botvinnik, Tal, Fischer, Kasparov, Karpov, and even Anand, is nuts.

Hehe.

I appreciate the argument you put forth though, and I think it is well written. I do not know your numbers, I assume they are great, as one of the other comments suggested. You'd do well here not to write something that will send up red flags, and I think with this essay you'll be alright.

TheTallOne0602
Posts: 83
Joined: Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:53 pm

Re: Yale 250. This shouldn't be hard. And yet...

Postby TheTallOne0602 » Thu Nov 11, 2010 2:07 pm

Actually, not to get pedantic, but "mercury" is mercurial, the word coming from the tendency of liquid mercury to change in volume, hence thermometers based on mercury, and so forth. So, no, not just people are mercurial. But regardless, it is such minor issues that I shall take care of in later edits, for the moment I was just looking for a broader yes/no/maybe so I thank you for that.

As far as Kramnik and "greatest": I said "one of"! I can't stand him either. And I think Fischer and Kasparov are the only two I can make a legitimate case for as greatest of all time.

But there really isn't much room for such niceties in a 250 word essay ;-)




Return to “Law School Personal Statements”

Who is online

The online users are hidden on this forum.