What Other Talents Seers Have?/Seeing in Chess

[sevenhundredandthirteen <sevenhundredandthirteen@yahoo.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 49475

Alexander Lomski wrote:

> > Laurasia wrote:
> 
> ssyc> On a slightly different tangent but still in support
> ssyc> of the 'Ron is a Seer' theory, I've thought that (in
> ssyc> addition to the dodgy predictions that Ron makes) the
> ssyc> fact that he is exceptionally good at chess may be an
> ssyc> indication of his Seeing abilities.
> 
>   Personally, I have always had an impression, that his
> talent in chess was an indication of his *analytical*
> abilities. 

Maybe. But in that case surely Hermione would be excellent at chess, 
which, we know, she isn't (or at least, Ron always beats her. 
Suggesting he's go something she hasn't) Maybe it's more indicative 
of his abilities to do with strategic thinking. However, strategy is 
always enhanced if you can anticipate how your enemies will respond 
and have a prepared rebuttal.

Alexander Lomski wrote:

>   And anyway he was playing against Harry, who is supposed
> to be a damn good Seer himself.

Ron plays against lots of different people: Harry by himself, Harry 
assisted largely and poorly by Percy, Hermione, McGonagall's Giant 
Chess Set. He wins against all of them. 
Harry prophetic powers are more associated with dreams and visions in 
very specific circmstances- he's asleep, mostly. Any example of 
Ron's 'power' is usually an offhand or unintentional remark. Whilst 
both of them have shown some degree of prophetic insight, they're in 
very different circumstances. If clues of their oponents next move 
was to visit either of them, it would more likely be Ron than Harry 
(unless Harry dozed off partway through, that is... :D ).

Alexander Lomski wrote:

>   My general point: in a complex analytical game a talent
> that is unreliable and irregular can only hurt. So if Ron is
> a Seer, I would dare to say that his Seeing abilities
> actually *damage* his play.

Only if he's a Trelawney style Seer. We've only been introduced to 
one Seer, so there's no evidence that this is the only type of 
Seeing. There are other types of seeing the future- Arithmancy, for 
instance, so there could be different degrees and types of Seers too. 
If he was a more efficient Seer who didn't go into trances (he hasn't 
yet, and people still suggest he's a Seer) it would help.  Anyway, if 
Ron is a Seer, he doesn't know it yet so he's not completely full of 
himself and his 'powers' like Trelawney is. Whilst Trelawney takes 
every available opportunity she can to 'display' her 'powers,' if Ron 
could just 'see' simple things (like an opponents next move) and 
couldn't understand why, he's more likely to trust them as instincts.


Alexander Lomski wrote:

>   On the other hand, are there any areas where Seeing could
> be of help? My bet is it helps in flying, in seeking the
> Snitch, maybe in beating the bludgers ...definitely in dodging 
spells (yet another
> topic that was discussed at length in this group). Any other
> ideas or counterarguments?

Seeing would be of excellent help in Quidditch only if it's not 
trance-like unexpected out-of-the-blue Seeing. If it's just short 
range 'I know there will be a bludger coming there' it would be an 
excellent ability to have, although, in that case surely the same 
ideas can be applied to a chess game. 
To quote Alexander Lomski who I'm currently counter-arguing: "For it 
to be of *any* help, it must provide him with nearly complete picture 
of what will happen, and regularly (not once in several games)." This 
is still true for a Quidditch game. If you see 'Seeing' as of being a 
great use in Quidditch, which is constantly changing during the game, 
then it should be of equal help in a chess game. I daresay, it will 
be *more* of a help in chess because in Quidditch there are 14 
players with different minds and making different choices according 
to the different evolving circumstances, whereas in chess there is 
one person moving all the pieces in unity according to the changing 
situation. Also, in Quidditch all the players move at the same time, 
whereas in chess pieces move only one at a time. I agree that Seeing 
would be of excellent use in Quidditch, especially to the Seeker, who 
acts largely independent to the rest of the game, although I don't 
understand how you can say it would be of use in Quidditch, but not 
in Chess, when, essentially they work on the same theory: there are 
pieces moving in complex patterns and both are strategic games. 

~<(Laurasia)>~