it was actualy 0-0-0-0-0-0because the rook moved over six squares
En Passant
Sort:
The Best philosopher of them all was So - Crates, from Bill and Ted's totally bogus Excellant Adventure lol
TheGrobe wrote:
Aren't we all?
Maybe, though that answer of yours makes me feel like I'm having a conversation with ELIZA. ;)
The word promotion implies a change of role, not a replacement of the piece.
TheGrobe wrote:
The word promotion implies a change of role, not a replacement of the piece.
Subtle, but the rules state that the right to castle is lost with "a rook that has already moved". And as such it hasn't yet moved.
If you were promoted to Prime Minister of Canada tomorrow, and would then stay home for a while, couldn't the papers truly write that "The Prime Minister has not yet shown himself in public", even though you were going to town all those weeks before the promotion?
Bubatz wrote:
TheGrobe wrote:
The word promotion implies a change of role, not a replacement of the piece.
Subtle, but the rules state that the right to castle is lost with "a rook that has already moved". And as such it hasn't yet moved.
If you were promoted to Prime Minister of Canada tomorrow, and would then stay home for a while, couldn't the papers truly write that "The Prime Minister has not yet shown himself in public", even though you were going to town all those weeks before the promotion?
Point taken.
Incidentally, if I were promoted to Prime Minister of Canada tomorrow that is precisely what I'd do.
Well, en passant as we know it would be impossible without the two-square move rule.
HEHE YEAH MY LIL BROTHER TOLD ME ABOUT THIS!! :P i ddnt liked it!! :o
yeahh i got 2 much angry!! :D when my lil brother show off me by telling me new rules!! :@
I found out about it while looking at a bunch of the help questions
it's still surprising to me how many players aren't totally switched on about it, like even some 1500's, but i've never won a game yet because of the move. more often I play the pawn 2 squares, and they don't use it .that's when you start taking it easy, and lose
To be honest, I've never used it in a game in my life. I know it but never used it lol
I've used it a few times, maybe twice, but never very often. In casual OTB, I usually ask my opponent if they're familiar with the move before executing it. If they're not, I inform them of the rule, but I don't use it on them. For tournaments, however, I expect them to be familiar with the move, and for games here on chess.com, I expect them to trust that the computer is not going to allow me to make illegal moves.
Personally, I don't really like the move, or understand it's logic. But, it's part of the rules just like castling (which I don't fully understand either). The rules are the rules, and if they're good enough for Anand, Kramnik, and those guys ... they're good enough for me too.
I throw in that last part about rules being rules because I was recently reading through some posts on another forum where there was a ridiculous (in my opinion) discussion going on about the morality of castling, or some such debate. I didn't intend that as a dig at anyone here ...
Interesting thoughts
Often taking en passent is not the best move, this game I played OTB at school today is a great example
yeah that was wierd, I analysed it there was nothing to fear from it
did your comp stop acting up, I wonder what Fritz says about Qg4
ah oK then
my experience is that most people that knows about en passant will play it nine out of ten times otb. therefore I used to calculate that they will do it.
some even looked at me thinking I overlooked that they could take en passant - not always the best decision to take en passant but they do it because they think they surprise. it is always part of my calculation.
I am 34 I first heard about en passant when I joined a chess club 30 years old even though I learned to play chess as a six yers old.
got a chess program when I was 12 and I thought the program had a bug because it took en passant.
Aren't we all?