The point re the en passant rule reducing pawn chains is a valid one, I think. Another aspect -- a bit more crass perhaps -- is that having every piece subject to an en passant capture instead of just pawns would cut down on the middlegame chess book industry at the expense of the "endgame scribes." LOL ;)

 Seriously, en passant is adequate strategic compensation  for pawns having a double-square advance. It has led to many an argument between those in the know and those who had no clue about the rule prior to falling into it, but that's usually an early chess lesson for one who hopefully will experience many in his/her lifetime.

stain, no one has suggested that pieces other than pawns are subject to being captured en passant.

"Now, why did the rule makers only allow pawns?  Theorectically, if a pawn can capture En Passant, why can't a bishop, knight, queen, rook, king, etc.?" << themirrorwin's question in the first post of the the thread.

I was addressing his theoretical query. Pterodactyl's point re reduction of pawn chains (the strategic point why the rule as is helps reduce draws) and my "crass" point re oversimplification of the game by an extended application of the en passant rule flows from that. By removing key pieces through an expansion of the rule (I mean the use of pieces to remove pawns in this way would lead to more piece exchanges), we would see truncated middlegames and something strategically closer to checkers than chess via "capturitis!" :P LOL

As I understand it, en passant was created to balance out the two space pawn move.  But to allow any piece to capture en passant would be a bit of an overcompensation.  It's nice that they named it "en passant" and came up with a nifty little war metaphor to explain it, but chess is a game, not a real life war battle, and to make it so that all pieces could capture en passant for the sake of realism in real battles would undo the game balance that the rule was designed to create.

 

And I haven't set this up on a board yet, but in my mind's eye I see that the placement of just a very few minor pieces could cause almost all of the opponents pawns to become immediately subject to en passant capture if they choose to move two spaces.  So what would happen is that everyone would go back to moving one space (for the most part) which is just a regression back to where you didn't have the option to move two spaces and defeats the whole purpose.

 

It'd be interesting to play some games with this variation and see how far reaching the impact would be. 

OckhamsRazor wrote: 

And I haven't set this up on a board yet, but in my mind's eye I see that the placement of just a very few minor pieces could cause almost all of the opponents pawns to become immediately subject to en passant capture if they choose to move two spaces.  So what would happen is that everyone would go back to moving one space (for the most part) which is just a regression back to where you didn't have the option to move two spaces and defeats the whole purpose.

---

  That is a good point.

stain wrote: OckhamsRazor wrote: 

And I haven't set this up on a board yet, but in my mind's eye I see that the placement of just a very few minor pieces could cause almost all of the opponents pawns to become immediately subject to en passant capture if they choose to move two spaces.  So what would happen is that everyone would go back to moving one space (for the most part) which is just a regression back to where you didn't have the option to move two spaces and defeats the whole purpose.

---

  That is a good point.

---

Yes, a really good thought at last!! On the other hand, it is not so easy to capture the pawn as it often has another pawn protecting "en passant" square... So I'm still not sure.

Good point Beelsebub666!  Although, the theorectical rule change probably did come up often because of skorj's point.  Other pieces can always go back and get a pawn later.  It makes me think that perhaps it wasn't that the variant made for a poorer game but that the option was of taking with another piece was rarely desired and thus the rule never need for other pieces.