En passant

[Neil Frarey]

En passant has to be the stupidest move in chess.

Period.

[Hans Jung]

Why dont you start your own variant?

[Brad Thomson]

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.

[Neil Frarey]

Why dont you start your own variant?

I'm not going to turn into another Bobby Fischer ... thanks anyways.

[Neil Frarey]

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?

[John Coleman]

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.

[Brad Thomson]

... was he drunk?

No, but he must be.

[Neil Frarey]

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.

[Brad Thomson]

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?

[Patrick Kirby]

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.

[Pargat Perrer]

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!

[Pargat Perrer]

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.

[Neil Frarey]

Something must have ...?

[Patrick Kirby]

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.

[Pargat Perrer]

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.

Wow, Patrick, and I didn't think of THAT! Referring to the captured piece capturing en passant, that didn't occur to me! That really makes it wild.

Ah, but I thought of something..... if the piece being captured en passant can itself capture it's attacking piece en passant, an infinite loop is possible.

Consider, White has a rook on d1 and Black a rook on d8. All the squares between them are empty.

The white rook captures the black rook on d8. The black rook captures the white rook en passant on d2. The white rook captures the black rook en passant on d7. The black rook captures the white rook en passant on d2. The white rook captures the black rook en passant on d7. etc etc ad finitum ad nauseum