Post DH meaning of PS/SS chess game.

[pippin_999]

No: HPFGUIDX 184736


> Zara:
> Should we, then, consider the sacrifice of the black knight (Ron's 
> piece) to parallel Albus's death? Certainly its time and manner was 
> chosen by Albus, just as Ron chose when he would be taken. And 
> certainly the goal seems to have been to advance other pieces/parts 
> of his plan, most notably Snape and whatever he planned for the Elder 
> Wand. But Albus's death does not fit so well in other ways. In the 
> game, the taking of the knight is one step away from a checkmate. 
> 
> Also, the knight in the game is described as a very active piece,
one  which travels about the board removing many white pieces from
play.  (Sorry, no quote, I was checking my Lithuanian copy...) This
fits  Harry far better.

Pippin:
It doesn't work as a parallel for the 7th book only, but what about
the whole series?

Albus and his (chess)men remove many obstacles from Harry's path:
DE!Snape, Quirrell,Diary!Riddle, Fake!Moody, Umbridge, the DE's of
OOP, and the Ring horcrux. But eventually Albus sacrifices himself and
sends Harry on alone. Dumbledore's man, indeed.

Ron chooses to take part in the game -- he doesn't consider  giving
instructions to Chessman!Harry while he and Hermione watch from safety.

Playing to win is also a choice.  Ron could  have tried to maneuver
the pieces  so that the Trio them could reach the eighth rank and get
to the door without checkmating the White King.   Those aren't choices
that Dumbledore considers in the book, but they are strategies adopted
by other characters. 

In wizard chess, the pieces have minds of their own. The chessmaster
can tell his men what to do,  but he needs to motivate them to do it.
"Ron knew [his pieces] so well he never had trouble getting them to do
what he wanted." (PS ch12) That sounds a lot like Dumbledore.  

Harry's pieces, borrowed from Seamus, "didn't trust him at all." They
"kept shouting different bits of advice at him, which was
confusing:'Don't send me there, can't you see his knight? Send *him*,
we can afford to lose *him*.'"

That snippet points out that to win, the chessmaster needs to make
decisions about which pieces he can afford to lose. He can't leave it
to chance, nor to the pieces themselves, nor  to the enemy. If the
pieces trust him to win the game, they will let themselves be
sacrificed, because "that's chess" -- they understand that without
sacrifice no victory is possible. 

Pippin