newbie rant - en passant

Objectively speaking, it is bizarre. The game is built around taking pieces by ending on the squares of which the opposing piece was once sitting. This rule, which comes up once in a hundred (or more) games, is the exception. You can like the rule, that is fine. But you can't tell me its not bizarre

The first time I was EN PASSANT ED I think I was around 15 with a girl who lived down the street...

"Objectively bizarre" is a combination of words I never expected to see. And no, the game is not "build around taking pieces etc.". That's by no means the core of the game.

I agree that it (subjectively ) looks bizarre at first, but once you know the reason, it makes perfect sense.

Not to mention it is a never-failing source of chess memes.

When the changed the rules to allow the pawn to move two squares on the first move, they wanted to open up the game and create more clashes between the pieces. But they discovered that the defender could avoid having his position opened up by pushing past an advanced attacking pawn and creating an interlocking wall of pawns that completely closed the game down again. Hence the en passant rule

     Pawns move one square at a time--forward only. They can capture any piece that is one square diagonally forward from them. So a white pawn on e5 can capture any piece on f6 or d6. When rules were changed 500 years ago to let pawns start by moving two squares forward (one time only), it became apparent that having an advanced pawn could be a liability as a neighboring opposing pawn could fly right past them. This could be especially troublesome in the ending, when a player could create a passed pawn by sailing right past a pawn that would otherwise be restraining it. So, to counter the one-time-only two-square pawn advance a one-time-only special capture was invented. (As chess was based on ancient war, it made no sense to let an infantryman freely march right through a spot where he could easily be killed and force the opponent to helplessly watch them go by.) So that pawn can be captured while passing through (en passant in French) the square. Of course the opponent can choose to let the pawn go by, hence the en passant capture is only available for one move.

read the rules before playing a game & you won't get unpleasantly surprised.

For the same reason that the king can move in any direction and the bishop can move more than one square at a time -- it's the rules.

You could just assume that some 8th century chess player got his queen stuck and was like "well my queen can go as far as I want now."

En Passant was created so that 4th and 5th rank pawns would still have the option not to be bypassed by opposing pawns.

Like it or not, these rules are what the modern chess world received, and it is very unlikely that they will be changed. You're always expected to know the rules before you play, in any game. Imagine an  basketball player trying to take his free throw from underneath the basket. It's just not the rules. Chess actually has relatively few rules compared to other games, so one strange-seeming rule acutally isn't that bad. As in any other game, you have to take the rules for what they are.

during the development of modern chess rules, once pawns were able to move 2 squares on their initial move (in chaturanga it was only one square), en passant was probably determined to be a wise rule change to avoid too much blockading of positions by the new possibility now available of darting past a capture square.  🙂

'your enemy cannot push a BUTTON if you disable his HAND!'

it's just a very very good game!

If a pawn wants to become a woman who are you to block their transition? (All pawns are born biologically male).

https://www.chess.com/blog/George-Bean/working-class-pawns

A simple explanation is a YouTube video away! Agreed. Who came up with castling? Lol. Hang in there and don't let the chess snobs/bullies get to ya!

And why not be able to take the king when a player moves a skewered piece.

I  mean for example, if you don't want to lose your queen and rather give up your king. Especially if you can put your opponent in check with said move.  

Too many loop holes in this game.....

And why does the computer let you blunder your queen and not your king?

There is an actual bug in the game of chess. See when you skewer a piece in front of a king, why aren't you able to move your king to a square that the skewered piece can no longer threathen? It doesn't put your king in harms way, and the opponent can't take the king it unless they move their king first (causing a check instead of being able to take).
Gah! This game is unplayable!!!

Just to clarify what i meant. The white king should be able to move to d3, and not being able to move there is an obvious bug.

Not so. Should you allow the white king to move into check, there is no reason that the black king cannot also expose himself to check by playing .....Bxd3. In that case the white king will be captured and the game is over--black wins.

lose your king and you lose

How much more obvious should it be that the guy is trolling? This is not a misguided beginner. He is a veteran with 4 years of experience, 7500+ games, 1000+ rating, a troll name, troll profile pic, troll description, the whole package.