How, after much labour to catch a gazelle, a fox
stole the lion's prey and was then eaten by the lion.
Can a checkmate be ‘stolen’ from another player?
In a way, yes. In Quaternity, this is not only a legal move but an integral part of the game’s dynamics. The mechanics behind it are woven into the myriad of situations that unfold during play. Nobody truly ‘owns’ a checkmate until it is completed, even if a player has invested time and effort in conquering another army.
Up until the very last moment, anything can happen, and this is where the beauty of the game lies. Every player must remain vigilant, even when it appears that two armies are locked in battle while the other two remain uninvolved. In reality, this is never the case. As we can see in this clear example: (click on the link below to see the game)
While observing this game and its outcome, I recognised an echo, a reflexion of one of Aesop’s fables, which unfolds as follows:
“Once, a mighty lion spent hours stealthily stalking a swift and graceful gazelle. With great patience and effort, the lion finally brought the gazelle down. Exhausted but pleased, the lion began to savour the reward of its hard work.
Just then, a cunning fox appeared. Watching from the shadows, the fox had observed the lion's toil and plotted to seize the reward for itself. While the lion stepped away briefly to quench its thirst at a nearby stream, the fox swiftly dragged away the gazelle.
The lion returned to find its prize missing. It quickly spotted the fox feasting on the stolen meal. Furious at the treachery, the lion let out a thunderous roar and leaped upon the fox.
"Did you think," growled the lion, "that I would not claim what is rightfully mine?"
With that, the lion devoured the fox as punishment for its theft.”
Left:
the moment where Green (the fox) checkmates White (the gazelle), unwillingly supported by the Red bishop (the lion).
(move 192)
Right:
The moment when the Red queen (the lion) checkmates Green (the fox).
(move 232)
This fable brings to mind another, this time from Rumi’s Masnavi, in which three animals —a lion, a wolf, and a fox— go hunting together. When the time comes to divide the spoils, the wolf and the fox naively assume that the lion will share with them, failing to recognise who they are truly dealing with.
The lion first orders the wolf to divide the spoils. The wolf splits them into three equal portions, one for each hunter. Outraged, the lion immediately strikes, tearing off the wolf’s head.
The lion then turns to the fox and commands him to divide what remains. This time, the fox does not keep even the smallest morsel for himself; instead, he offers everything to the lion. Amused, the lion asks where he learned to distribute the spoils in such a manner, to which the fox replies:
“O King of the World, I learned it from the fate of the wolf.”
Now, as I continue observing Quaternity games, I eagerly anticipate the moment when Rumi’s fable takes symbolic form on the board. If that happens, rest assured, I will share it with you all.
However, the principle expressed by Martin Lings in 'Symbol and Archetype': "A symbol, worthy of the name, is that in which the archetype’s radiation predominates over its projection"—seems to be constantly at play on the Quaternity board, provided one possesses what the Andalusian sage Ibn Arabi refers to as "symbolic awareness."
Ibn Arabi states: "There is nothing else in manifestation; there is nothing else but God manifesting Himself, making Himself present in a theophanic form." As Pablo Beneito adds, "the veil that prevents us from seeing this is our lack of symbolic awareness, which would allow us to recognise the theophany. The key is to realize that what we are contemplating is precisely that—the theophany. Symbolic awareness, as Beneito explains, enables us to perceive it.
♔
Comments