A black mark to anyone who thought this post was about how an opponent must be cheating, or the site faulty, because a pawn moved to an empty square and still managed to take my pawn. It is, however, still about the en passant capture.
As has often been pointed out here, the en passant capture was introduced in conjunction with the (then) new rule giving pawns the chance to move two squares on their first move. This was so the pawn couldn't skip past a square where it would formerly have been open to capture. My question is, why is it only an opposing pawn which is allowed to capture en passant? Surely a pawn moving two squares instead of one could be seen as, potentially, avoiding capture by any enemy piece. Why wasn't a bishop allowed to capture en passant? Or a knight? Or even a king?
Excellent and interesting question! More speculation: Perhaps the idea was limited to the pawn's relationship to the enemy pawns--as if their interaction (able to block each other, but not able to pass each other safely) were a special aspect of the game that needed to be preserved, with no reference to how pawns operate with the pieces. Maybe the pieces should be "big enough" to handle themselves without special protection from the pawns afforded by this rule. ......?
Originally posted by C J HorseYes, but not putting your rooks on squares where they can be forked by the pawn is just an added strategy to the game. You can modify your game taking into account the new rule.
I thought along similar lines, but then:
What if the pawn moves two squares, past a square attacked by your knight, and forks both your rooks? It would be getting a big advantage from the "new" rule then.
There is nothing you could do to prevent a pawn jumping past your pawn.
My take anyway.
D
Originally posted by C J HorseThe funny thing is, before we can talk about 'correcting' the pawn's sudden ability to get past a threatening Bishop, Knight, etc, we must first realize that the en passant rule didn't fully stop the pawn from passing another pawn.
A black mark to anyone who thought this post was about how an opponent must be cheating, or the site faulty, because a pawn moved to an empty square and still managed to take my pawn. It is, however, still about the en passant capture.
As has often been pointed out here, the en passant capture was introduced in conjunction with the (then) new rule givin ...[text shortened]... y enemy piece. Why wasn't a bishop allowed to capture en passant? Or a knight? Or even a king?
Assiac - Adventures in Chess [oft quoted, but still the best example]
Under the old chess, with pawns limited to a one-square first move, White plays 1.Bg2#, end of story. Under the new rules, the outcome of the game is completely reversed by 1...d5#!!, and all the crying in the world about en passant isn't going to save White.