Conceptual problem created by en pass!

The first two moves seem logical. White announces checkmate with Bg2+ but black replies d5 and announces checkmate on white. The question is, whether now white can argue that black pawn never reached d5 and was captured on d6 itself (so it could not save the check Bg2+) with en pass so that white in fact is not checkmated??

Credit: Taken from futilitycloset.com

I don't think so. Since chess is strictly turn-based, the black pawn does occupy the d5 square temporarily. White, on his turn, can't execute the en passant because he has other priorities, i.e., his king being checked.

I'd agree, the en passant isn't playable as it would not remove the king from check.

The idea behind the en passent rules is that no pawn should be able to advance past the 3rd rank without an opportunity to challenge it with another pawn. But that's just the 'aim' of the rules. In this case the rules just miss the mark. Interesting... I always thought that chess rules were perfect :oP though I guess it's not that different than the cases where pieces (other than pawns) control the passed square. They can't take en passent. Although thgis case does seem like an injustice!

I thinbk you're right. It's just that the way the rule is usually explained, there's this concept in the double pawn move and en passent that two turns are being taken and en passent is supposed to end as if the advancing pawn was taken on the first of the two moves. Problem is that the 'two moves' idea is just that... an idea. In the rules, it's just one move so that would be checkmate nontheless. 

It's a discovery and you can't take en passant because your in checkmate en passant takes a move it doesn't automatically happen and if that was the case the king is in checkmate. 

Many commenters miss the point, as this is indeed an interesting conundrum...

It definitely could be argued that the pawn has no "right" to stand on d5 - and if such is the case, it is BLACK who couldn't have moved that pawn, and who was checkmated himself by the move 1. Bg2. 

As the possibility to capture en-passant existed, making the pawn only reach d6 on retrospect - that pawn had no right to move at all, as on d6 it doesn't block the bishop's check now, does it?

The rules argued retrospectively...

Of course the problem is purely philosophical. As far as the actual rules of chess are considered, 1...d5 is a legal move, 2. cxd6 e.p. isn't. 

Yes, is only a case of discovered check.

This situation was also discussed in this thread.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/fun-with-chess/intercepted--who-won-the-game

The problem is that conceptually if en pass is allowed, black king would still be in check and so it would be impossible for black to reply with check

@chessmicky: The whole point is that logically one could say that d5 does not save check at all because one can always say that pawn in fact was on d6 and not on d5!

Wrong. The move is d7-d5. The en passant rule doesn't say you are forced to move your pawn only one square if there's an enemy pawn on 5th rank.

That is correct. The pawn stands on d5 blocking the check on black. While cxd6 is a potential move for white, it does not block the check by the c8 bishop so is illegal.

The rules of chess say that on a pawn's first move it may move 2 squares, so d5 is a perfectly legal move that blocks the check and delivers checkmate.  The goal of chess is actually to be the first to take the enemy king, so in this case black wins because he will capture white's king before white captures his.  Of course we never actually play on to take the enemy king; we end the game after checkmate.  Think about it this way.  None of the pieces actually have good functioning brains with the exception of the king, so once the king is gone the pieces have no idea what to do because the king can't control them.  Therefore black wins here because d5 blocked the check and delivered checkmate simultaneously.

Is there a white rabbit in this LSD trip ??  Talk about chasing your tails ??

Yes. the position isn't static. The bishop on g2 offers the first check, and traps his king.

Dont you see the white rabbit thats just above your post ? 

I don't think there is any problem, simply people overinterpret rules and create "meanings" where there aren't any.

First come first served! And so white dies.

Nice position btw.

marcomarco13 escribió:

ty kaynight precious king of translators, We like u when u think, every 29th of February. Only four centuries to try to translate into english, all right, we're not in a hurry.

Curious, nobody here says en passant, not even posers. Neither j'adoube.

And how am I supposed to tell "nobody says en passant" without saying it? It's the gringos who are mixing languages. About Arrabal, he's more nice when he's drunk (not a rare ocassion though).