Theory: Knight 2 King

[unplottable_mod]

NOTICE: Please be aware that the "email comments" option has been off since this post was originally posted on Jan 8, 2004. We will be turning it back on and also encouraging all and anyone who is interested in continuing dialog discussion and debate on this theory and others to visit unplottables.net where a discussion board was set up and where

Comments

[verstehen]

This is a really interesting theory and, frankly I don't know enough about chess to say much on it, I think it's interesting you choose Sirius as the first piece lost. When there's several others before that -- Bertha Jorkins and Cedric to name a few. Even the Longbottoms could, presumably, be called victims of 'the second war' as the attack on them happened after Voldemort -- the King -- was defeated.

Also interesting is that the King 'gives up' rather than being removed from the playing field.

[tartanshell]

Also interesting is that the King 'gives up' rather than being removed from the playing field.

Personally, I don't think that's very surprising. In chess, during the game, you take any pieces you conquer off the board. For example, if you are White and you take Black's pawn with your bishop, YOU pick up Black's pawn and remove it from the board.

BUT. At the end of the game, if Black checkmates you, I'm pretty sure YOU are supposed to reach down and tip your king over, onto his side. The other player doesn't touch your king. And, since the game ends when the king is taken (checkmated), he is never removed from the board.

I'm guessing kings throw their crowns down in surrender in wizard chess instead of allowing themselves to be tipped over by their players.

[verstehen]

Yes, but it's interesting that it's a 'surrender' rather than a death (ie, moved out of the game).

[caesia390]

I think it's interesting you choose Sirius as the first piece lost. When there's several others before that -- Bertha Jorkins and Cedric to name a few.

I thought of that, too, but I thought about it and now I see Sirius's death as the start of the Actual war, vs the cold warfare that'd been going on before. ...Because while Cedric's death is a huge turning point for Harry, politically, it did almost nothing. Sirius's death, however, takes place during the battle that determine's Voldemort's reemmergence into the public eye. Following it, the Ministry issues a statement acknowledging the war. Even though it's been building up since 1981, this is, in effect, the first shot fired. Only at the end of OotP has the second war truly begun.

As a side note, I see the theory that Cedric's death was unnecessary and even not supposed to happen incredibly compelling. His death being the start of a war would defeat that interpretation.

Edited, because I meant to spellcheck.

[verstehen]

And there's still the conflicts that occurred after Voldemort was defeated to consider. Those are also politically motivated (or in the case of the Longbottoms) based as information-gathering/protecting pieces. Yes, it's part of a cold, overt war -- but they're still moves on behalf of the King. Just as Dumbledore makes several moves pre-Voldemort's resurrection (such as the removal of Lucius from the Board of Governors and effectively helping to cut off the Death Eater influence via 'authority' from Hogwarts).

spellcheck? oh god.

[caesia390]

I understand what you're saying, but i think the limited number of chess pieces explains the missing characters.

[sinick]

I think that in the grand scheme of things, Cedric just isn't important enough to rate a knight.

He might've been a pawn whose death prior to Sirius' wasn't commented on in the game.

[campy_capybara]

I think it's more of the pun - Sirius Black is the first Black Knight; Sirius rides a Hippogriff - akin to the horses a Knight rides (Hippo=horse). The other characters that fell before the onset of Voldemort wouldn't count because the White King hasn't bodily resurrected yet. Also, there's the bit about the White Queen taking out the Black Knight - which the other characters did not fall to.