En passant

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • En passant

    En passant has to be the stupidest move in chess.

    Period.

  • #2
    Why dont you start your own variant?

    Comment


    • #3
      Chess is an analogy to war, which in those days was almost exclusively hand to hand combat. When you run into an enemy fighter you have got to offer battle, you can't keep walking, that would be desertion and dereliction of duty.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Hans Jung View Post
        Why dont you start your own variant?
        I'm not going to turn into another Bobby Fischer ... thanks anyways.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post
          Chess is an analogy to war, which in those days was almost exclusively hand to hand combat. When you run into an enemy fighter you have got to offer battle, you can't keep walking, that would be desertion and dereliction of duty.
          OK, but en passant only occurs in one particular instance ... and even then it's completely optional.

          Who thought up this move anyways ... was he drunk?

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Neil Frarey View Post

            I'm not going to turn into another Bobby Fischer ... thanks anyways.
            I doubt that anyone is going to confuse you with Bobby Fischer. Why don't you aim a little lower... anal fissure.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Neil Frarey View Post
              ... was he drunk?
              No, but he must be.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Brad Thomson View Post

                No, but he must be.
                OK, so I read that it was created in response to a pawn's 2 square move off the 7th or 2nd rank.

                This is pure insanity.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Neil Frarey View Post
                  This is pure insanity.
                  Are you saying that all chess players are insane? And what about hockey, if the en passant rule in chess is insane, what is your opinion on fist fights in hockey?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    A more interesting discussion would be whether extending the logic of en passant to pieces other than pawns would make for an interesting variant. For example, if in the Scandinavian after 1.e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5?? could be answered by N(B)xb5! en passant.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Patrick Kirby View Post
                      A more interesting discussion would be whether extending the logic of en passant to pieces other than pawns would make for an interesting variant. For example, if in the Scandinavian after 1.e4 d5 2. exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5?? could be answered by N(B)xb5! en passant.
                      You could end up with positions in which there is a chain of en passant captures. The first piece to make an en passant capture could itself be en passant captured by an opposing piece, which itself might be en passant captured by another piece, and so on. It would be interesting to compose problems based in this!

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Neil Frarey View Post

                        OK, so I read that it was created in response to a pawn's 2 square move off the 7th or 2nd rank.

                        This is pure insanity.
                        Haven't you been involved in chess for a long time? So why now are you suddenly realizing en passant is insane? Why now are you looking up how en passant came to become a rule in chess? Something must have happened, did you get checkmated by an en passant capture?

                        I consider the stalemate rule making stalemate a draw much more of a problem than en passant. Why should a King that must move, and every move puts it in check, be allowed to just stay where it is and the player declares a stalemate draw? Stalemate should be a loss for the player who is stalemated. In top level chess, players resign when they are down by substantial material, but in the lower levels of chess, players can and often do play on hoping for a stalemate. This must be a pain for organizers, watching a player play on in an obviously losing position because of a hope the opponent will stumble into stalemate.




                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post
                          Something must have ...?
                          ENPASSANTCHECKMATE.gif

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Pargat Perrer View Post

                            You could end up with positions in which there is a chain of en passant captures. The first piece to make an en passant capture could itself be en passant captured by an opposing piece, which itself might be en passant captured by another piece, and so on. It would be interesting to compose problems based in this!
                            Hmm.. I didn't think of that. Should the rule be that if a capturing piece is itself captured en-passant the capture is reverted? but then there could be scenarios where the captured piece can capture the piece capturing it by en passant. So 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Bxb5?? en passant could be answered by Qxc4! en passant. However 4.Nxb5! would be still be a refutation because Qxc4 en passant could then be met by Bxc4 and there's no good en passant capture.

                            It would also be necessary to specify the exact route of the Knights - for instance 1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qa5 4.Nxb5?? would have to pass by the route c4-b5 to stay on the guarded c4 square, but going by the route b4-b5 would be a blunder.

                            It feels like this could be an interest chess variant.. although perhaps a lot of games would peter out to mutual standoffs where neither side can do anything.

                            Comment

                            Working...
                            X