LOST-Theories.com

“In chess openings, whether or not the sacrifice is accepted or declined can change the rules of the game—not in the objective rules of the game sense, but in a subjective sense between the two people playing, changing the rules of the moves they will make moving forward. ”

are you saying for example… I offer up a pawn, you don’t take it so I interpret that as “oh, ok, I guess we’re gonna play by friendly rules.” Friendly rules always take so much longer, and in the end guess what… someone still loses, usually the more friendly.

I get that Ben can use this as an excuse to go after Penny. Don’t see it with Sayid. I think Ben was just being his normal opportunistic manipulative self in preying on Sayid’s emotions at the time.

Besides, Ben already gave Alex away when he handed her over to Rousseau in season 3 because she helped Karl. Ben didn’t need or want Alex anymore. Ben forced Keamy’s hand. Keamy had to shoot Alex, and Ben made him do it.

in playing chess if your offer a sacrifice (or a gambit, whatever you want to call it) the other player says to herself, if I take this gambit, is the material I gain (the piece being offered, worth what I will potentially lose, looking into the future

the acceptance (the killing) or the decline (not killing) changes the shape of the game, changes the shape of what is to come

if you think about it ben in the barracks is like a king castled … he is right where he wants to be, he sends his sorti, his pawn alex forward, the gambit is accepted, and killed

with regard to sayid, after playing the sympathy card to sayid (I have experience paid too) gets sayid on his side, this is what a sacrifice does, it changes the shape, so, abs, he uses his experience to ensnare sayid, he is in effect cashing in on his gambit, his normal opportunistic manipulative self preying on sayid’s emotions

I don’t think he wanted Alex killed. Think about the events…

He sends Alex away, not realizing she would be captured. She “accidentally” tells them she is Ben’s daughter. They wouldn’t have known, and Ben wouldn’t have know that would happen.

At first, he doesn’t care who they have, but he is obviously concerned when he finds out. He is filled with rage when he HAS to let her die. Him saying she is only a pawn ect. is just him rationalizing it to himself. He doesn’t want it, but his loyalty lies with the island and the bigger picture.

I dought we will be able to figure out the symbol or meaning of these “rules” without further knowledge. The king not being able to kill a king is very cool thought, though.

sure, every play in the game changes the game, it doesn’t change the rules. In your theory, you said:

“In chess openings, whether or not the sacrifice is accepted or declined can change the rules of the game”

I disagree that it changes the “rules of the game” the rules stay the same, the tolerence and leinency may differ, but rules are rules.

Ryan…

He didn’t care about Alex any more. He used her as a pawn, just as he said. Now he can play the “oh, you killed my daughter, well she isn’t really my daughter, but I loved her like one until I got her killed” card. and use that to go after Penny to hurt Widmore.

When he sent her away, he gave her that “you know what they would do if they knew you were my daughter” speech to tell her what to do if they were overtaken in the jungle, which is exactly what happened and what put keamy in the position to kill her and for Ben to push him to do it. Ben “always has a plan” and is always a step or two ahead of everything. It shouldn’t be too surprising that he is looking at the bigger picture and is willing to let some crazy french woman’s kid die in the process.

As far as the rules, you can see my theory http://www.lost-theories.com/theories/2008/apr/25/innocents-gotta-love-em/

You are right rules are rules.

I thinking of rules in a linguistic sense, that is diachronically, or that the only fixed rule is that rules are open to change.

Sausurre: language is “a system of pure values which are determined by nothing except the momentary arrangements of its terms”.

Rules are socially agreed upon.

ABS, you expressly accept that in your statment, Ben offers, Widmore’s agent accepts to change the values, and in reassigning value, the rules of the game have affectively changed the rules of the game.

I dont quite understand what you are finding fault with.

In a game that might not even have rules, might their not be rules in the natural law sense, a system of I ought or you ought (ie morality) that is imputed to each and everyone of us, absent prescribed rules.

Ben offers the sacrifice, Widmore’s agent accepts. This changes the rules, or the basis or possibilities in which pieces operate, their possibilities for interaction between one another.

Ryan, of course I dont know whether or not he wanted to have alex killed, but I think in Sayid’s case, he obviously trades with Sayid on the basis of her death, the smirk on his face after their interaction said alot to me, (my wife thinks that ben is so manipulative that he possibly could have had sayid’s wife killed, framed the guy that sayid shoots like 50 times [the guy works for widmore, but doesn’t recognize ben (‘who are you and why are you following me?’)]

maybe the battle could be a pure battle of which rules: the rules of capitalism verses the rules of … nature/source/platonism (i.e. dictatorship of the philospher king) ? who knows.

Ben may not have wanted her dead, but he uses has justification, “he changed the rules” means I changed the rules

rules are rules, they aren’t open to change. unless both sides agree upon it. Ben “sacrificed” Alex so he could use that as an excuse to go after Penny.

I just realized I’m argueing that Ben somewhat planned the Alex execution and was scared and out of control at the same time… I may need a moment

to use saussure again: what if you stepped into the middle game of a chess game with the pieces arrayed and the positions drawn, what would the rules be then…yes you would have objective rules (knight move in sets of 2s and 3s, rooks move on ranks and files, bishops move diagonally …) but additionally the rules of how you express yourself would be additionally proscribed by the positions.

regardless of whether “Ben somewhat planned the Alex execution” what is important is the way he uses it: it opens a line of attack, and that he is now justified, i.e. playing within the rules, is something that he jumps all over, the accpted gambit has exposed Widmore’s queen, and the rules now allow for its taking

i think that we are arguing about what a rule is

question: if a rule is rule is a rule and not open to change, can ben legitimately go after penny, or would he still be violating a rule?

question: is the rule in question of human making (a product of human will) or one of natural/rational derivation?

The rules are the same, you’re strategy may differ, depending on what pieces are left and where. But still I don’t see the rules changing.

no, Ben can’t legitimately go after Penny. He is using Alex’s execution to go on a personal rampage. According to the rules, Penny is just as off limits as she ever was. Ben is rationalizing his neglect for the rules by claiming Widmore did it first.

as a law student, I can say for sure that rules change as they are applied, and rules change with regard to where they are applied, and rules may change with regard to the context they are applied in, and rules can change depending on who is applying them…why do you think their are are legal disputes? parties argue as to the scope of the law

widmore’s action changed the scope of the law, the game now tolerates different variations.

they are still playing the game for control of the island,

also I dont think that ben goes on personal rampages, his moves are calculated…he has to have some reason to kill penny (killing penny means killing desmond?), I dont think that it is just revenge, penny must be a crucial piece to the game,

ben is a sociopath. all of his actions are for his own (the island’s) benefit. he doesn’t love. everyone is a chess piece to be played to his advantage including locke and alex.

Excellent exchange between you Retro and ABS. +1

The very nature of a pawn it is that it is used to advance the player, and expendable when no longer required. That being said, we see at the end of S3 Alex’ betrayal of Ben. Ben did not send Alex to the temple into safety. He made sure she went to the Radio tower.

Ben saw what Alex did as a personal betrayal, and decided in that moment she would be expendable to him. Not to say Ben no longer loved Alex, because he did. He made the decision that Alex could be utilized in other ways. If he cared about her, he would have sent her to the temple. That was the game changing move Ben made.

When Keamy arrived with Alex in tow, Ben was fully aware of Keamy’s background as a mercenary and aware of his misdeeds. Ben had to know Keamy could and would kill Alex, but made another play. One that failed and got Alex killed.

Ben did not make the trade between himself and Alex. Ben protected Ben. When Keamy called the bluff, Ben was surprised, but he would have been fully aware that this might be a possible outcome.

Unleashing Smokie was not out of retribution for killing Alex, it was Ben’s method of escape from the men he knew were going to kill him.

Retro, thanks for making us think! I loved the post!

I hear you retro. Good post. +1.