En Passant question - just out of interest

Originally posted by greenpawn34
[b]Never ever capture En Passent in a pub game v a complete stranger.[/b]

Well, in the UK maybe.

Originally posted by greenpawn34
[b]Never ever capture En Passent in a pub game v a complete stranger.[/b]

Maybe before pushing the first pawn, you could ask your opponent if he's ever heard of en passant. If he says "No" or "What's that?", then you know not to play it. 🙂

Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
>I've played about 700 games here on RHP, and only once has en passant been applied!

on both sides? i find that hard to believe.

Never ever capture En Passent in a pub game v a complete stranger.

Guess what happened to me when I did.

Listen and listen good. Heed these words.

Never ever capture En Passent in a pub game v a complete stranger.

Originally posted by trev33
on both sides? i find that hard to believe.

It's true, only one en passant capture from either side in 700 games. The possibility has occurred several times, but it has been used only once in that time.

Originally posted by AttilaTheHorn
>It also astounds me, especially in youth tournaments, the number of players who don't know the 50-move rule and that the count starts all over again once a pawn is moved or a capture made, and some of the arbiters in these youth tournaments don't understand it too.
>A lot of players don't fully understand the 3-fold repetition rule too, not understan ...[text shortened]...
>And while I'm on this rant, what's so hard to understand about stalemate? It's simple!

There is no excuse for not knowing the rules? Not all players receive thorough instructions of the rules governing the play of the game. Not all players have access to the rule book governing the game. Arbiters of chess tournaments should know the rules and have the rule book with them for consultation should the need arise.

Here is an interesting ramification about the En Passant rule:

Because of this rule, it is sometimes possible that the same position in terms of where the pieces are must occur FOUR TIMES, NOT THREE, to allow a draw claim.

Think about it!

Originally posted by znsho
Here is an interesting ramification about the En Passant rule:

Because of this rule, it is sometimes possible that the same position in terms of where the pieces are must occur FOUR TIMES, NOT THREE, to allow a draw claim.

Think about it!

Yes, because the position is not really the same if rights have changed.

In this position, White has a forced mate in 8, despite an apparent three-fold repetition:

N. Petrovic
The Problemist 1959

#8

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Yes, because the position is not really the same if rights have changed.

In this position, White has a forced mate in 8, despite an apparent three-fold repetition:

N. Petrovic
The Problemist 1959
[fen]r3k2r/p2p4/p1pP2p1/5pN1/5p2/1Q3p2/PP4b1/KB6 w[/fen]
#8

Please provide the solution.

Knowing en passant is good, but who knows about why it came about? I know ;-) It has to do with the e3 e6 e4 e5 players ;-) there is my hint ;-D

Originally posted by onebyone
... It's almost like it still hasn't been fully accepted yet. Then again, trying to explain it to my 8 year old step son wasn't the easiest of tasks...

"But that's cheating!!"

"Err... no, it's a legal move.. really."

So I can't blame my elders for leaving it for me to discover. Maybe I should have done the same. 😕

I found it easy to remember and explain this rather unusual law once I knew the reason for it. This is as as follows.
When chess was first invented the pawn could move one square straight forward if that square was unoccupied, or could capture one square diagonally forward (these options are of course still available). To speed the game up in the opening, the double square first move for pawns was introduced, (I think in the late 15th century), but it was felt that this should not allow a pawn using the double move to avoid a capture by an opposing pawn which was on it's own fifth rank. So the 'En Passant' capture was introduced to allow a capture as if the pawn had only moved one square, and since under the original laws it could have moved to it's fourth rank after a second move, this is why the capture is allowed only for one move. I hope this helps.
You will find the official FIDE wording of the law in their website : -
http://www.fide.com/component/handbook
Left-Click on 'E.1.01A Laws of Chess', and then go to Article 3.7d.

Originally posted by znsho
Please provide the solution.

1.Qb7! Rd8

If 1...0-0, 2.Qxd7 and there is no good defense to 3.Qh7#

2.Qb3 Ra8 2nd repetition 3.Bd3! threat 4.Qf7+ Kd8 5.Qf6+ Kc8 6.Bxa6+ and mates 3...Rh1+ 4.Bb1 Rh8 3rd repetition 5.Qc3! Now this works, because Black cannot castle on either side! 5...Rh7 6.Qf6 threating Nxh7 then Qe7. Black has no good defense and will be mated in 2 more moves.

Originally posted by Essex 3
I found it easy to remember and explain this rather unusual law once I knew the reason for it. This is as as follows.
When chess was first invented the pawn could move one square straight forward if that square was unoccupied, or could capture one square diagonally forward (these options are of course still available). To speed the game up in the op mponent/handbook
Left-Click on 'E.1.01A Laws of Chess', and then go to Article 3.7d.

Black to move

Black wins if there is no ep rule.
White wins if there is an ep rule.

So, the advocates for the 2-move rule only wanted to speed up the game without having an undue effect on things like endgame theory [and middlegame theory - this is one of the reasons a backward pawn is considered weak].

However.......

Assiac [Heinrich Fraenkel]
Adventures in Chess 1951

White to play. Who gets mated?

Under the old rules, White would have mate by 1.Bg2#. With the new two-step initial move, the result is reversed - Black replies 1...d5#, and the ep rule is of no help to white.