Contents 1 Airing date 2 Corresponding episode 3 Seemingly wins? 4 Not Irony 5 Castle legality 6 acting error 7 Repeated Phrase

Airing dateEdit

Was it not released today? I see the synopsis is in place. I think we should use 20-11-2007, not 21-11-2007. I think Verizon will stick to tuesdays for conformity unless something goes wrong.--Mc peko 11:42, 20 November 2007 (PST)

I see you corrected the date. Also great work with adding the picture and everything.--Mc peko 12:24, 20 November 2007 (PST)

Corresponding episodeEdit

What episode would this mobisode correspond to?--Mc peko 11:42, 20 November 2007 (PST)

I've listed 03x11 Enter 77 in my table on my user page.--Mc peko 12:23, 20 November 2007 (PST)

There is no way to know for sure. Jack was at the Barracks for several episodes and there is nothing to tie it directly to Enter 77. Dharmatel4 14:46, 20 November 2007 (PST)

It happens sometime between "Stranger in a Strange Land" and "Par Avion". We don't know what Jack was doing in those three episodes so it could be anywhere in there. -Mr.Leaf 18:43, 20 November 2007 (PST)

Yes. And we cannot know that it is day 77 as currently stated either, can we?--Mc peko 07:57, 21 November 2007 (PST)

Theres no way for sure to know, almost a week past between "Stranger in a Strange Land" and "Par Avion", so we really cannot know for sure. I say keep it as unknown, until we get some sort of confirmation from say the writers/producers sometime.

I clarified it on the article page with reference to the storyline, just to be clearer. It couldn't be actually during "Stranger in a Strange Land", since that episode ended with them still on the boat. But it could be during "The Man from Tallahassee", since Locke, Kate, and Sayid waited until nighttime to infiltrate the Barracks. -- Graft   talk   contributions  03:34, 23 November 2007 (PST)

I believe it corresponds to "The Man from Tallahassee" because Jack and Ben are wearing the same clothes. Notice when Jack is playing football with Tom he's wearing the same outfit, jeans and a t-shirt. Also, when Ben is wheeled out in the wheelchair, he's wearing the same tan pants and an orangey shirt. I know they could wear the same clothes on a couple of different days but this seems like an intentional clue by the costume people rather than a coincidence. I believe this missing piece happens on day 81.--Bigfunkymonkey 07:01, 4 January 2008 (PST)

Seemingly wins? Edit

In the first paragraph someone wrote "Ben immediately retaliates with an illegal "castle" and seemingly wins the game.", but he uses the castle move, but if you look at the board right before he makes that move you cant tell if he is clearly the winner, so I'd like to pull out the seemingly wins part, any takers?--mac_ad 03:00, 25 November 2007 (PST)

I would be in favor of changing it back to "Ben immediately retaliates with a castle and wins the game." We don't know that the writers intended for the castle move to be seen as illegal. There is too much interpretation going on in whats supposed to be a description. The legality of the move is already appropriatly covered later in the article. Dharmatel4 12:11, 25 November 2007 (PST)

That it is illegal is a fact, not interpretation. I think what mac_ad is trying to point out, is that the "winning" part is the speculation/interpretation. Is it checkmate? Or will the game continue? --Hunter61 21:32, 25 November 2007 (PST)

The castle is illegal, no doubt: If the board was set up incorrectly, there is no legal move (because in this case, the board must be set back to the last known legal position, which happens to be a correct starting position). If the board was set up correctly, Ben must have moved his King and lost his right to castle permanently. However, these are the rule I use while playing tournament. At home I use differnt rules. Ojas 19:47, 4 August 2008 (PDT)

Ben does not win the game with the castling play. He merely stopped Jack's offensive play. There is no indication from the placement of the pieces on the board that Ben's move won the game - to say so is complete conjecture and should not be regarded as canon - and should also not be stated in this subject' main page. .--Saukkomies 15:16, 1 December 2007 (EST)

To Godzilla8nj: Please refrain from writing talk-page style on articles. Articles and talk-pages are two quite different things.--Mc peko 03:09, 15 December 2007 (PST)

• Added notes re: the interpretation of the three moves in sequence into the article to clarify: Ben's PxP opens up the 2nd file, which allows Jack's QxB which also attacks Ben's R. Ben castles to protect his R. Also, Jack never resigns. Ben is not winning, as far as piece count: Jack has captured a pawn, bishop, and knight, whereas Ben has only captured three pawns. In other words Jack is winning; it can also be argued he has a significant positional advantage (even considering both players' pawn structures to be in disarray). -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  22:30, 22 January 2008 (PST)

Not Irony Edit

The statement in literary devices "Eventually Ben's words about Jack wanting to return would become true." is not irony. It's coincidence. If you want is as a literary device, may I suggest foreshadowing? Anomymage 21:45, 25 November 2007 (PST)

I do't really think it's forshadowing though, because this mobisode happens Episodically after the events the refer to. I know the events happenafter the chess match chronologically, but Lost doesn;t always follw a chronological order. --Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 16:39, 26 November 2007 (PST)

Castle legality Edit

It may just be a prop error, however, as it looks like they placed both kings and queens on the wrong initial squares. Jack's king looks to be on its original (incorrect) square, while Ben's queen looks to have moved up 2 squares from its original incorrect square.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elpepe (talk • contribs) .

I'm not sure if the person in the Theories section, who is proposing that the castle was legal, is merely theorizing or is trying to state that the move was legal. This person appears to be countering the posted theory on the illegality of the move. Can the person who posted those responses post here and state your basis for thinking that the move was legal, but that the board was incorrectly set up?TheBookPolice 12:36, 12 December 2007 (PST)

I didn't write the theories information, but the person was correct. Both kings are in their appropriate starting positions but the board is turned around. That means dark king has started on dark square and light king has started on light square which is the opposite of what it should be. But if you look at the pieces rather than the color of the squares, it all makes sense. Ben's king has not moved and the Castle is legal. Dharmatel4 12:32, 17 December 2007 (PST)

I guess I'm a little confused as to how it can be so certainly stated that the board was set up incorrectly, when it's just as possible that both players have moved their kings one square since the beginning of the game. Considering Jack's already lost 4 pieces by :08 in the segment, one can reasonably assume that the game's been going for a while. Plus, the point below about three bishops for Ben is correct. Ben's piece count, including the two off the board, is 17. Until we get a clarification that it was a prop error (which has certainly happened with prop errors in the past), I don't think we can say that it was a definite intentional cheat, or a definite accidental board set-up error.TheBookPolice 09:17, 19 December 2007 (PST)

I can agree with that. It should not say any more than we definately know. I'll remove the statement about the board being turned around. Dharmatel4 09:50, 19 December 2007 (PST)

Yes but if Ben had allready moved his King one square, he couldn't castle. The only way the castle can be legal is if the board was inverted. -Gluphokquen Gunih ▲ 09:57, 19 December 2007 (PST)

That's my point exactly. We don't know which is true: did he cheat, was he mistaken as to the rules, or was it prop error? Incidentally, I don't think he was cheating. You can visit my blog (via my talk page) if you want to read my thoughts on this scene. Thank you, Dharmatel14, for the revision.TheBookPolice 12:24, 19 December 2007 (PST)

Ok. I've added some material on what I'm calling irregularities in the game. The material is trying to say the things that are seen without taking a stand as to if they were intentional or prop errors (inverted board, 3 bishops). Dharmatel4 10:24, 19 December 2007 (PST)

Must be a bad prop error, look closer. At about :08 in we get a clear picture of the board. Count Ben's bishops. Before Jack takes one during the course of the mobisode I count THREE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Godzilla8nj (talk • contribs) .

Correct. As I stated above, there are 17 black pieces on or near the board.TheBookPolice 09:17, 19 December 2007 (PST)

Wrong. There are 16 black pieces on or near the board. The bishop on h5 is a white one. Ben's Queen (amongst other pieces) casts her shadow onto the bishop, so the bishop seems rather dark.

Confused the hell out of me, any serious player would have taken advantage of the pin on the Knight (on f3, if h5 were a black Bishop). Seeing the position from Jack's angle later on makes this more clear. We all know the symbolism behind the darkness and the light. The game shows us, that there is no absolute darkness and no absolute light; it depends on the angle from which you look at the situation. Ojas 22:13, 4 August 2008 (PDT)

If you compare the photo above with the diagram at the top of the beginner's page at the USCF web site [1], you will see that the board is properly oriented for the players and colors, and that both kings are not in their proper starting position. This means that either the kings were not properly placed at the start of the game (invalid game), or that Ben's castling was not a legal move. It is technically possible for Ben to legally have three bishops (pawn promotion to bishop instead of the usual queen), but doesn't make much sense - and it would require a spare set of pieces for the extra bishop. Yes, this could all be a prop error, but given the amount of subtle detail often present in Lost, combined with the chess theme of the mobisode, I suspect there's an intended hidden meaning. --Doc 10:29, 19 December 2007 (PST)

if you turn the board around giving Ben's pieces the standard placement for light pieces and jack the standard placement for dark pieces, you end up with the kings as seen in the screenshot. Dharmatel4 12:58, 19 December 2007 (PST)

Yes, but the position of the board itself - where the black and white squares are - is correct. The square on the farthest left of both player's home rows is supposed to be black, and the queen is always supposed to be placed on her own color. I find the odds of it being a prop error to be relatively small since anyone who knows the rudiments of chess would very likely know the "queen on her own color" rule. Anyone setting up a board without knowing this rule would be more likely to have the king and queen reversed on one side of the board - which doesn't look like the current situation. If they were setting up the board from a diagram, I'd think they'd have gotten it right. This brings me back to the fact that either the initial board setup or Ben's move was illegal, and that it was probably intentional. --Doc 10:25, 20 December 2007 (PST)

• Agreed, that the rotation of the board is correct:bottom left square is black.

• Conclusion of article content: Prop error is incontrovertible. Article now currently reads as a definite prop error re: the Kings: 1) Kings begin on the opposite color (Black King should be on White sqaure; White King on Black square), however these Kings lie on the same color as the piece 2) Moving the King to the same color during the course of the game would render castling an illegal move. 3) Board orientation is correct (bottom left square for both players is black). The bottom line is that castling left for the black side player would be a kingside castle, not a queenside, something obvious to any chess player.

• Castling motion: Ben castles as a beginner would, moving both pieces at once, making a beginner mistake: He touches the rook slightly before touching the king, rendering castling illegal: The first piece touched must be moved. In a friendly game between an advanced player and a beginner, this would be ignored, but Ben claims to be no beginner. The rule about touching pieces are stringen enough that this observation becomes stronger than the opinion of this editor only. (Therefore reverting removal)

It does not matter which piece Ben touches first. While many experienced players do move the king before the rook, it is the presumed intention that counts (according to German tournament rules). By moving his hands towards both rook and king, Ben showed his intention to castle and any other move would be illegal once he has touched a piece. To take this further; if a player touches one of his pieces accidentally, he is not obliged to move it. To take this even further; if a player touches one of his pieces with his thumb, forefinger and middle finger, it cannot be accidentally. in that sense, chess is a fair game: it's the intention that counts (if the intention is made clear to the opponent) Ojas 19:31, 4 August 2008 (PDT)

• There is also circumstantial evidence: 1) Jack's King is also on a square of the same color; 2) Moving the King early in the game is not what an experienced player (as Ben claims to be) would do.
• The camera Left-Right is not flipped, since both Jack and Ben are shown using their right hands.

-- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  22:24, 22 January 2008 (PST)

acting error Edit

I've removed the term "acting error". I don't have any objection to the material, but I dont like that term. Its as much a script error, a direction error or a production error. I couldn't find a better term so I removed it. Dharmatel4 23:19, 22 January 2008 (PST)

Repeated Phrase Edit

In The Beginning of the End Hurley says "Never say never" which is something Ben says in this mobisode. I figured that should be brought up in this article.

• Thanks, will add to: Regularly spoken phrases -- ^Contrib¯ _Santa_ ¯  ^Talk  02:35, 1 February 2008 (PST)