18108 Players currently online!
Man vs. Machine - good luck!
Turn-based games at any time!
Vote for the best move to win!
Do you have what it takes?
Sharpen your tactical vision!
Get advice and game insights!
Learn from top players & pros!
View millions of master games!
Your virtual chess coach!
Perfect your opening moves!
Test your skills vs. computer!
Find the right private coach!
Can you solve it each day?
Bring it all together!
Beginners, start here!
Make friends & play team games!
News from the world of chess!
Search all Chess.com members!
Find local clubs & events!
Who's the best of your friends?
Read what members are saying!
Created on July 11, 2012 |
8043 Votes | 90 Comments
okay so everything is pretty clear about e p then...
No, that's not what it means. If the only legal move to get out of mate is ep, then it is forced.
so you are saying that: if a pawn moves two squares forward off of its home square to attack the enemy king, and the only move to get out of check is en passant, then suddenly en passant is not applicable and it's checkmate??
No, it is correct. They say "ask yourself if that pawn really gives checkmate or a check," meaning it isn't checkmate if the pawn can be captured. The only way I can see this happening is if the "capturing" pawn is pinned or the attacking pawn gives a discovered mate.
sorry 00diaz00 but i cannot believe the first answer is correct.
A couple of days turned into 19 months. :-p
So, it looks like you cleared up the confusion. The problem was that we were talking about the same thing. Its not escaping checkmate, but whether or not it is check or checkmate. Perhaps it was some language barrier?
When it's check:
When it's checkmate:
Here is a position where the en passant is illegal due to discovered check:
When it looks like checkmate, but is really just check:
The selfmate is a perfect example of someone forgetting about e.p.!
Okay it's been a while but i'd just come and saw that I made some sort of promise that I would find it out officially. It's been a while but here goes:
1. Is en passant allowed if the dubbelmoving pawn gives checkmate?
2. Is en passant allowed if the dubbelmoving pawn gives check?
3. Is it allowed to give checkmate with en passant?
4. Is it allowed to give check with en passant?
1. NO! A checkmate would end the game instantly. The pawn is not allowed to be hit because the dubbelmove has to be considered as a single move! Rather ask yourself if that pawn really gave a checkmate or a check, lol. But no joke it's really not allowed.
2. Yes. It's not a checkmate.
Im sorry but I cannot provide you with any decent link atm. If you look it up at fide it's still confusing, but the law like language of the big rulebook is pretty simple on the fact on checkmates, no options are allowed after checkmate it ends the game :P
Thanks for making me look up that nasty book again. I also found out that in some specific endgames the 50 step rule becomes a 100 step rule xD And I never knew that like in perpertual chess and some never ending endgames the remise is something optional xD And last but most funny when playing an offical game and players find out during the game that the bord was incorrect the pieces remain at the same places, on a correct bord xD
Again my apologies for not giving any decent link...
It's legal to use en passant to get out of what would be checkmate. And once someone tried to do en passant when his pawn was on my 3rd rank, threatening my pawn, and I moved my pawn 1 square forward, to make it go alongside the pawn
Mua-ha-ha-ha; en passant.
There used to be no powerful queen nor high range bishop either, so all of these rules and pieces "evolved" through time.
There is a movie called "Shatranj Ke Khilari" (The Chess Players) a film by Satyajit Ray. An entertaining and historical film depicting the tension between India and Great Britain in the early 1800's. They played in this old way until... I believe you can find it on youtube.
Look up the site's FAQs for how to post games if this is what you're wondering about.
can anybody post a game as an example ?
Actually what I'd like to ask is, what was Chess like before this rule was accepted? Are there any famous games which could have ended very differently if this rule was allowed back then. Games in which the deciding factor was or could have been a player preventing their opponent from getting that passed pawn?
"en passant" (or "in passing") rule was made only to "balance" the rule which states how a pawn may move two squares forward on its first move.
Naturally, if you choose to move a pawn two squares, you will sometimes find your pawn sitting next to an enemy one on the same rank. Out of "fairness" or like I said, "balance", you should have a right to capture this pawn so it does not become (quite suddenly) a passed pawn! You have only a one time opportunity to capture something in passing and so this is why you cannot capture the pawn on a later move in this way. The pawn is captured like it had only moved one square forward with it's opposing pawn replacing it on that square.
So why did they introduce the rule of 'en passant'?
00diaz00 must be right because I was once checkmated this way on another internet site and I could not capture e.p. I just thought it was a glitch. As for my last post; I just couldn't help it, lol.
30 hours ago
8 days ago
2 weeks ago
3 weeks ago
4 weeks ago
Why Join | Chess Topics |
Help & Support |
© 2015 Chess.com
• Chess - English
We are working hard to make Chess.com available in over 70 languages. Check back over the year as we develop the technology to add more, and we will try our best to notify you when your language is ready for translating!