House points and Dumbledore

[Grey Wolf <greywolf1@jazzfree.com>]

No: HPFGUIDX 51158

Tom Wall wrote:
> GREY WOLF WROTE:
> The trick wasn't knowing which key was the one, 
> but *catching* it. Harry only manages because he 
> is "the youngest seeker in a century". This is not 
> an obstacle of knowledge, but of ability -
>  
> I REPLY:
> So, I suppose that we're to assume that Quirrell is 
> *more* agile and better on a broom than Harry? Harry, 
> after all, only had to catch the "limping" key, and 
> if we're to assume that Quirrell damaged it, then we 
> have to assume that he had to catch it in top form.
>  
> And if we don't assume that Quirrell damaged it, then 
> minimum he's equal to Harry on a broomstick. Doubtful. 
> If Quirrell could do it, then it must not have been as 
> hard as we think.
> 
> In fact, the more I think about this, are we to assume
> that Quirrellmort is as strategic-minded as Ron, as 
> logical as Hermione, *and* as agile as Harry on a broom?
>
> Even if he learned about Devil's Snare and Fluffy, you
> can't *learn* the answer to chess or flying. Maybe the
> logic puzzle, although I since that was Snape's protection,
> I doubt that he'd've given Quirrell the answer.

I don't assume anything about Quirrels abilities. I assume that he 
cheated all the way. If he learned from the rest the puzzles like he 
did from Hagrid, he could've gone prepared to use the back door through 
all the puzzles (i.e. the plant and the dog are easy, he could carry 
the correct potion with him, a good broom or simply a handy dark art 
accio charm, and knew how to bypass the chess puzzle, just like 
Dumbledore did). That said, we don't know of the abilities of Quirrell 
on a broom, and Voldemort strikes me as a good chess player - he's got 
the sort of ualities that certainly help (ruthlessness, willingness to 
make necesary sacrifices, planning abilities and forward vision). Etc.

> GREY WOLF WROTE:
> For all we know, McGonagall just borrowed the chess 
> pieces of a friend that hadn't trained them well.
> 
> I REPLY:
> I'm not sure that I like that explanation, any more
> than I like the notion that Ron is a chess player
> capable of beating McGonagall. It lowers her stature, IMO,
> if that's the case. McGonagall doesn't at all seem 
> like the type to choose anything but the best "trained" 
> chess pieces for such an important task as this.

Then it is your problem, but I can accept that Ron is a good enough 
chess player. It is not contrived, unless you consider the whole books 
in that light (a love spell that saves the child from certain death? 
Harry a natural on a broom? Hermione being the best student of the 
year?). Winning a single chess game is not that difficult, especially 
when you practise as much as Ron does. And of course, we don't know 
that McGonagall is all that good at chess. She's good as 
tranfiguration, which is why she used the chess challenge, but that's 
it. Anything else is pure speculation, and my guess is as good as yours 
(unlike our guess about Ron's chess abilities, which we know from canon 
that he is very good).
 
> GREY WOLF WROTE:
> You also say that Voldemort wasn't so powerful - that 
> is not true. Quirrellmort was more than powerful enough 
> to finish off a 11 year old.
> 
> I REPLY:
> We've heard nothing to suggest that the bodiless 
> Voldemort, or even the Voldemort on the back of 
> Quirrell's head, had any sort of power at all. In fact,
> in GoF, Voldemort tells us he had no power but the
> ability to inhabit others while he was disembodied.
> And we know that the and the unicorn's blood is just 
> *barely* keeping him alive. Also, Quirrell says, when Voldemort 
> demands to see Harry. 
> 
> "Master, you are not strong enough." (PS/SS 293)

And yet you're still missing the point. Read my words again: I didn't 
say that Voldemort was powerful enough, I said *Quirrelmort* was 
powerful enough. Quirrell is a DADA teacher that has access to all the 
knowledge of Voldemort. Quirrellmort is certainly powerful enough to 
finish a Harry without love protection. 

> So, the strong dark lord isn't strong enough to look
> at Harry? But he's strong enough to kill 'im?
> 
> Sure, he *was* the most powerful dark lord in a 
> century. He was powerful BEFORE. Now he's just a 
> bodiless nothing (okay, he "sort-of" has a body.) 
> Isn't that the point? It is *not* true that 
> Quirrellmort could have finished off Harry - 
> obviously, he tried, and wasn't able.

Quirrellmort could've tried another approach instead of going 
hand-to-hand with Harry. A handy fieball, if wizards are capable of 
using them, could finish Harry off. Or Imperius followed by Cruciatus, 
like in the GG. Or by levitating a piece of the floor and smashing 
repeatedly against Harry. Or levitating Harry himself (or his clothing) 
and dropping him. Repeatedly. With extreme prejudice, too. (::grin::).

All those things are well within Quirrellmorts power, I am sure, and 
many more spells we don't know about yet. Quirrellmort made a tactical 
bluder by touching Harry, but at that point they couldn't know that 
touching Harry would trigger the protection. When you get down to it, 
the protection might have disapeared after resisting the AK, or in the 
11 years that have passed, or is only effective against AKs, so 
Quirrellmort's decission wasn't that bad - but proved to be the 
incorrect one. Which doesn't mean *at all* that he didn't have the 
power to finish off the brat.

> GREY WOLF WROTE:
> Ron received points for *willingly sacrifying 
> himself during the chess match*. That is what 
> makes it the most amazing chess game in the history 
> of Hogwarts.
> 
> I REPLY:
> Unless we're working from different texts, that's not the case.
> 
> "...for the best-played game of chess Hogwarts has seen in many 
> years..." (PS/SS 305)
> 
> No mention of self-sacrifice there.

We are reading the same text, but we are interpreting differently. The 
chess match that Ron played wasn't particularly interesting. From the 
ending position, it seems that he had lost both horses and the queen, 
at the very least. Since a bishop was used for check mate, I'd have to 
say that one of the towers was also missing (although I'm not really 
into chess, so I might be wrong in all these points). From the first 
moment, the chess game didn't look particularly matched nor an 
impresive easy victory.

What do I read, then? A good played chess game is one were the most 
important qualities of a chess player are used to the fullest 
potential. My own problem in chess is that I miss one that is possibly 
the most important, a quality that Ron knew well enough: the need for 
making necessary sacrifices for the greater good. The fact that the 
sacrifice was himself is what makes Ron the best player of chess in 
Hogwarts history. I don't think many people would be willing to do 
that. (And, as always, I'm repeating myself).
 
> I WRITE, RE: HERMIONE'S TASK:
> I did forget that. Pardons.  But honestly, were any 
> of you seriously unable to solve that puzzle? I 
> tried, myself, and was done pretty quickly. Pretty
> clear cut, if you ask me.

What are you talking about? AFAIK, the puzzle is unsolvable as 
described in the book, so you cannot have solved it, quickly or 
otherwise. You need the size of the bottles to solve it, and we don't 
have that information in the book. Depending on which bottles were the 
biggest and the smallest one and where they were, the puzzle might have 
gone from extremelly easy to absolutely impossible. I know a LOON once 
worked out the positions of the bottles, but I can't remember where it 
is. Possibly the Lexicon, though, if you want to look it up.

And of course, the point is that we are muggles and are used to 
thinking logically, and thus have the ability to solve the puzzle, 
while we have been told that many wizards simply cannot. And that is a 
canon point.
 
> Incidentally, does anyone have any theories as to how
> the challenges all reset themselves? Ie the small potion
> bottle, the damaged chess set at checkmate?
> 
> -Tom

As I said, I think that Quirrellmort cheated to pass the challenges 
quickly (just like Dumbledore does later on), but at any rate there are 
several theories going around. You can check the past posts, if you 
want (::cruel chuckle::). IIRC, one said that there was only two sips 
in the bottle, and another that it refills itself everytime someone 
enters the room. The other haven't really been examined to my 
knowledge, but I hope that wizzard chess can repair itself, or there is 
no way Ron could've trained his pieces if he had to substitute half of 
them after every game.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf