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

[vinagrette]

Wow. I don't know what to say other than WOW.

[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.

[fistshaker]

very interesting.

it's been quite odd for me to say to people "oh yeah, the whole ron is dumbledore thing makes sense..." and have them look at me like i've lost my mind. now have a very well thought out page to refer them to.

great job, guys.

[nqdonne]

I cannot express enough how much I love this theory. Well, it got me thinking (that and sbbo's post) about Harry as Voldemort (with Ron as Dumbledore). It's a completely unformed theory, but I'm starting to think that I should research it and find a way to back it up.

You can read my demented ramblings on the subject HERE.

*wubbles the chess theory* :)

[sbbo]

Indeed, it is spreading like wild fire, to quote Ixchelmala

[ursulakohl]

Have you thought about connections to Alice Through the Looking Glass? There, Alice is a pawn, but dreaming the Red King . . . Unless the Red King is dreaming her . . .

I think when I read the book, I assumed that none of the Trio was the king because their main goal was to get across the room, not to win the chess game, and the king is less likely to make the far side of the board than the other pieces.