Why doesn't the Pawn capture in the same direction as it otherwise moves?

I know you'll think it's a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyways: why doesn't the Pawn capture in the same direction as it otherwise moves?
Why doesn't it both moves and captures straight forward? Or why doesn't it both moves and captures diagonally forward? Or why can't it both move and capture on any of the three squares immediately in front of it?
It just seems illogical. Every piece captures the same way as it otherwise moves, except the Pawn...
While we're at it, why not create a piece that can move as a Bishop but can only capture as a Knight?

I think chess needs to be completely modified to erase all the illogical rules it has:
- The fact that pawns don't capture the same way they move
- The ability that pawns have to advance two times at once
- The weird en-passant rule
- The ability to castle (Imagine if Obama was taken hostage, and then he just said "let me just long castle right there, bye" and instantly he teleported a mile away)
- The fact that when you lose your king you lose the entire game (Imagine if a chinese guy killed Obama, would we all surrender to China? No, Biden would become the new President. In chess too, if our King gets captured, our new commander-in-chief should become the Queen!)
- Even the Knight needs to be replaced by a piece that moves more logically

Who's with me to create an all new version of chess?

I think you summed it up in your first sentence.

Whilst your at it have you ever thought that golf is a bit stupid? If only the ball and club face were bigger it would be easier for everyone.

Tennis. That net seems madness, its in the way so get rid of it.

And poker, just deal the hole cards face up so no one has to guess anymore.

Hope the mother ship aint left yes cos your not from this planet.

Originally posted by Marc Benford
I know you'll think it's a stupid question, but I'll ask it anyways: why doesn't the Pawn capture in the same direction as it otherwise moves?
Why doesn't it both moves and captures straight forward? Or why doesn't it both moves and captures diagonally forward? Or why can't it both move and capture on any of the three squares immediately in front of it ...[text shortened]... ced by a piece that moves more logically

Who's with me to create an all new version of chess?

If you knew your chess history, you would get the logic behind en passant.

Originally posted by Marc Benford
I think chess needs to be completely modified to erase all the illogical rules it has:

Don't worry - it's only a passing fad.

Let us know when your new version is ready!

😀

About these illogical pawns, I think we should replace them by two different kind of pieces:
- A piece that moves like a Rook, but can go only one square
- A piece that moves like a Bishop, but can only go one square
It would simply be more logical.


Oh and I forgot that stupid rule that if your opponent isn't in check and if he can't move without putting his King in check then the game is draw (stalemate). Even if you have 9 Queens and your opponent has only a lone King. That's probably the stupidest rule of all.
Imagine if China and the US were at war. And the US army was completely beaten. At the end, the White House was invaded by the chinese army, and the last surviving american was Obama. A dozen chinese soldiers were surrounding Obama. And then Obama said: "Wait, it's my turn to move now! And look, I can't make a move without being killed on your next turn, so the war is a DRAW!!! Suckers!"

I'm sure some people will argue that this rule makes the game a little more interesting, but then why not invent some more totally illogical rules to spice up the game?
- After 42 turns, all your Pawns get promoted to Knights.
- At the end of each of Black's turns, any piece that was on b5 gets teleported to f3, any piece that was on f3 gets teleported on c7, and any piece that was on c7 gets teleported on b5.
- If you lose a Knight, choose one of your Rook and promote it to a Bishop.
Chess would be a thousand times more exciting, right?

Surely the most illogical rule is that you can't put the King in a position where it can be captured?

Also, is there any other game than chess where the whole objective of the game never actually occurs?

Originally posted by Marc Benford
About these illogical pawns, I think we should replace them by two different kind of pieces:
- A piece that moves like a Rook, but can go only one square
- A piece that moves like a Bishop, but can only go one square
It would simply be more logical.


Oh and I forgot that stupid rule that if your opponent isn't in check and if he can't move withou ...[text shortened]... of your Rook and promote it to a Bishop.
Chess would be a thousand times more exciting, right?

Perhaps we want a game that doesn't remind us of Obama? Or anything to do with real politics. 😕

Originally posted by SwissGambit
Perhaps we want a game that doesn't remind us of Obama? Or anything to do with real politics. 😕

Political chess.... *shudders* i can see it now:

"White plays Chancellor of the Exchequer to e4...
all surrounding pawns are declared bankrupt and removed from the board,
with the respective King owing added tax as compensation"

edit: we might as well make the a1 square the 'jail corner'

Originally posted by 64squaresofpain
Political chess.... *shudders* i can see it now:

"White plays Chancellor of the Exchequer to e4...
all surrounding pawns are declared bankrupt and removed from the board,
with the respective King owing added tax as compensation"

edit: we might as well make the a1 square the 'jail corner'

In political chess (US version) nothing is clear.

The board is not square. It is some random shape. They just cut a slab out of a tree trunk.

There are no 'squares' on the board. Instead, a Rook claims to be on e4 and there are endless arguments over whether that is truly his position.

Sometimes the game stops for hours because someone starts a 'filibuster'. No one can move during a filibuster.

There are no clocks. The president is surrounded by 4 Rooks wherever he goes. The other rooks don't actually have to attack anything themselves. They have a Bishop launcher on top capable of decimating enemy targets.

There are more colors than just black or white. White has less pieces on the board, but way more Bishop launchers. Brown has many pawns, but no Bishop launchers. They're not allowed to build any.

Maybe a fiscal cliff clock.

Any game not finished in a set time and both sides lose?

As for China, what about all the money we have borrowed from China? If China took over, we would end up with a new healthcare program. And if I am not mistaken, the Chinese have doctors that work for less pay and its healthcare system works better than Obamacare. U.S. doctors may want more money than Chinese doctors may settle for.

As for continuing to fight after the King had been captured, then that would be like everyone had to die in order to be beaten.

How would you know what is and isn't illogical ? You're yet to make a move.

Originally posted by SwissGambit
In political chess (US version) nothing is clear.

The board is not square. It is some random shape. They just cut a slab out of a tree trunk.

The most powerful piece is the "Spin Doctor" when occupying the centre
of the board it can rearrange all the opponents pieces.