En Passant Oddity

Thanks Leigh, yes that is the rule. Because it’s the rule I can’t question it’s validity in my chess puzzle

Im curious why after refusing the en passant , you can’t next move engage it on the same pawn
You have lost the right to it.Either use it at that moment or it’s gone.

I’m assuming that’s because the dynamics of the game changed because you didn’t take that first and only option which is an unfair position for your opponent .

Its a fresh pawn on the other side so You get that same dynamic.

Its the rules of chess😇😇😇

en passant actually porvides for a option...here:

porvided Black wants to.

I think understanding the historical context of the rule helps explain why it is the way it is.  I actually don't know if this is true, but it is how it was explained to me...

In the olden-olden days, there was no 2-move option for pawns.  At that time, a pawn on the 5th rank guards against the opponent being able to advance a pawn on the adjacent file.  When the 2-move rule was added, that strategy ran the risk of disappearing, because a pawn on the adjacent file could simply bypass the pawn on the 5th.  En passant effectively retains that strategy... if the adjacent pawn uses the "new-fangled" 2-move rule to bypass the guarding pawn, the pawn on the 5th can still capture it as if it had moved one square.  BUT, just like in the olden days, if you don't capture it right away, you'll lose the chance - in the olden days, you lost the chance because the opponent could move the pawn a second time and no longer be subject to capture. Under the new rules, you lost the chance because the rule says you lost it.

This is why after 1.e4 e6 2.e5 d5 3.d4 f5, white can only en-passant-capture blacks f-pawn, because he lost the chance to capture black's d-pawn by not doing it right away.  And if white doesn't capture the f-pawn now, he will lose the chance to capture that one too.

itsa dum rule thats arbitrary. steinitz hated it and lobbied against it w/ his eponymously dying breath.

in regards to getting only the imm chance to capture ?...member chessplayers hava short memory (tho e/o has the first 10 moves a the ruy permaburned in their banks) and this alleviates that. 

What's "dum" would be to have a game where each player is afraid to advance pawns to the 5th rank lest they give a away a passed pawn opportunity.  But it takes someone that understands chess to realize how much this would change play of the middle and endgames.

ur dum

This isn't your first excursion into la la land in terms of chess rules and how they work and why they exist.

In chess puzzles/problems, en passant is applicable only if retro analysis of the position proves that the last move was a pawn moving 2 squares up, thus allowing en passant.

This is different from castling, where we assume that it is always possible, unless it can be proven that either the king or the rook has moved.

yes in codex they cover that in Chapter IV >> Article 16 (2)...so thx IM Pfren !!

(NR wooda never known this...lol !) 

In the above en passant move it appears to be checkmate.

Prior to the en passant rule being added it was.

If a novice chess player doesn’t know this rule what can he do

If he is “ told” in an over the board game  that there is a move and he must play it he could touch every piece on the board looking for it lol 😂 .

So can you claim checkmate when the other player resigns.

it’s an arbitrary point because you won anyway.

But technically you didn’t at that moment

The term “ checkmate” assumes there is no other move for the king

In one part of history ( pre en passant) it is

In another part of history it isn’t 

In the above chess position

Not exactly.  En passant was added at the same time as the initial two-move rule.  Thus the opportunity wouldn't have presented itself in the first place under either the old or the new rules.  Wikipedia has a nice explanation:  "The motivation for en passant was to prevent the newly added two-square first move for pawns from allowing a pawn to evade capture by an enemy pawn."

I think there would be a lot more closed, dull positions out of the opening if it weren't for the en passant rule.

The move was originally invented in 1561, and officially accepted to the rulebook in 1880 according to wikipedia. "en passant" means "in passing".

Paul Morphy was born in 1837.  If the rule was only official in 1880 then the above puzzle would have been checkmate as it wasn’t an official rule of chess. The move was originally invented in 1561, and “””officially accepted “”to the rulebook in 1880 according to wikipedia. "en passant" means "in passing". has been known since the 15th century but was only an unofficial rule

I agree totally that the move improved chess.

Unless en passant and the two move rule are seperate in history. I can’t find records of that. Maybe someone has that. I would be interested out of curiosity