Thank you for the link ...and for the great en passant board.
Is the en passant mandatory? Also ... this f4 white pawn moved for the first time on the 21st move, advanced to f4 on the 24th move, This is black's first pawn move. However I'm in check. There are no moves to make - I defy anyone to find a move on this board ... So what is to be done? What is happening here? I don't see that the En Passant applies. Do you? What about Checkmate? I'm still confused. 😲
That's a great example thanks for posting it. The idea of en-passant is that you can capture
the opponents pawn just the same way as if it had only moved forward one square.
Your opponents pawn is removed and your pawn sits on that square - one in front of the others starting position.
Originally (a few hundred years ago) chess rules only allowed the pawns to move forward one
square on the first move. This rule was changed to allow the first pawn move to be one or two squares.
This made for a more lively game.
Then I guess a few people said this wan't right because now these pawns could evade capture
by jumping passed the enemy pawns....the en-passant rule was invented to fix this problem.
Yes I did try e5-f5! So many times. But e5-f6 does make sense. It's the only move I didn't try, nor did I recoognize the move for what it was. Thanks, it makes sense now. So it wasn't a Checkmate then? The lesson here: Never let your opponent talk you into resignation! According to the below definition if you don't take the opportunity when you have it, it's lost. So, if it's not mandatory, and my impression has been it isn't.
This game ended because no pieces would move, in any combination.
Would a missed En Passant stop the game?? Or could this be a Checkmate? Thanks very much.
Mahout, this is a def. of En Passant that my (also novice) opponent sent me:
En passant (from French: in passing) is a move in the board game of chess. En passant is a special capture made immediately after a player moves a pawn two squares forward from its starting position, and an opposing pawn could have captured it if it had moved only one square forward. In this situation, the opposing pawn may capture the pawn as if taking it "as it passes" through the first square. The resulting position is the same as if the pawn had only moved one square forward and the opposing pawn had captured normally. The en passant capture must be done on the very next turn, or the right to do so is lost.[1] Such a move is the only occasion in chess in which a piece captures but does not move to the square of the captured piece. If an en passant capture is the only legal move available, it must be made.
This rule was added in the 14th or 15th century when the rule about pawns having the option of initially moving two squares was added. The rationale is so that a pawn cannot pass by another pawn using the two-square move without the risk of it being captured
Good post Mahout - but diagrams and PGN'S are better than words.
As Mahout correctly points the two move leap was introduced to
speed up the game because they use to start like this.
However, Those against the two move leap argued that a part
chess strategy would be lost.
The 5th rank pawn holding back unmoved pawns.
The pawns could now simply pass the 5th rank pawn.
So En Passant was introduced.
En Passant
White has just played 1.c2-c4
Position after Black captured En Passant
2.bxc3ep
It not obligitory to take En PAssant if the opportunity presents itself.
EN Passent in Action
Originally posted by chouxIn this rare case, en passant is the only legal move. It is not mandatory, in general, but it is in this instance, unless you resign.
Yes I did try e5-f5! So many times. But e5-f6 does make sense. It's the only move I didn't try, nor did I recoognize the move for what it was. Thanks, it makes sense now. So it wasn't a Checkmate then? The lesson here: Never let your opponent talk you into resignation! According to the below definition if you don't take the opportunity when you have it, ...[text shortened]... ot pass by another pawn using the two-square move without the risk of it being captured
Now what I am curious about is how choux managed to create a thread that according to the thread list has five posts, but when I open it, I can only see the first one, and all the links that normally are below the post (e.g. reply) are missing! In the list of choux's public forum posts I can see some other posts from that thread, but if I follow the link that should lead me to those posts in the thread, I still only get the first post. And even though that one is only the seventh post in choux's public forum posts list, nothing else is showing on that page after it. Very odd! Is that some new form of forum en passant?
Originally posted by NordlysJust use all the codes you can!
Now what I am curious about is how choux managed to create a thread that according to the thread list has five posts, but when I open it, I can only see the first one, and all the links that normally are below the post (e.g. reply) are missing! In the list of choux's public forum posts I can see some other posts from that thread, but if I follow the l ng else is showing on that page after it. Very odd! Is that some new form of forum en passant?
[ gid ] [ fen ] [ pgn ][ fen ]
It will be tricky to edit your posting afterwards though, so only use this on important occasions, and use this wisely.
Originally posted by heinzkatUnclosed tags? Is it that simple? If so, why doesn't it happen a lot more freqently?
Just use all the codes you can!
[ gid ] [ fen ] [ pgn ][ fen ]
It will be tricky to edit your posting afterwards though, so only use this on important occasions, and use this wisely.
(Edit: No, it's not that simple...)
[gid][fen][pgn][fen]
Originally posted by NordlysNo, you have to use one expression and enclose it in multiple tags, like this:
Unclosed tags? Is it that simple? If so, why doesn't it happen a lot more freqently?
(Edit: No, it's not that simple...)
[gid][fen][pgn][fen]
[RHP][forum][crashes][and][subsequently][the][universe]Aaargh[/RHP][/forum][/crashes][/and][/subsequently][/the][/universe]