i know a little about loneliness. but i got used to it. tho it can still be painful sometimes.
En Passant Oddity
Sort:
28 days ago
0
#63
IMpfren
#61
aflfooty wrote: Every piece moves the way they do. Every rule in chess is created and followed. You can do certain moves and others are illegal.
Are we to just carry on without being curious .
The definition I outlined for why the king can’t castle when in check is because it has to move “ through or into potential danger”. …. which it isn’t
Is that the official explanation or is there another one.
Im certain I’m wrong but no one can tell me why
Im just curious that a chess rule is a rule and should never be questioned.
A knight moves a certain way full stop. No need to explain why. But are there other rules that are open to interpretation as I brought for discussion in this thread. Or are they all black and white don’t ask questions because they are the rules and have solid logic behind them
There is not a single rule of chess which is "open to interpretation", period and fullstop.
Of course you can make your own rules of the game, and set up a chess server where people will be able to play YOUR game under YOUR rules (the Lichess code is opensource and available to anyone). I can safely predict that you will feel loneliness.………
So what you are saying was there was never a time when en passant was not in the rules of chess when “ OFFICIALLY ADDED” and was never added. Even in Italy?
The Italians never had a version which then changed with time to fall in line with the rest of the chess community.
Italy had a different version of pawn play, known as
"passar battaglia", where pawns could freely pass an opposing pawn on an adjacent file without being captured (no en passant), a rule adopted by Italy until they fully adopted standard international chess rules, including en passant, around 1880 for the 1881 Milan tournament. This significantly changed opening strategies, allowing moves like ...f5 that would be risky elsewhere.
I’m guessing they never felt loneliness😇😇. They just had a chess rule that was open to interpretation and then they changed it.😊😊
on pissant allows the other side to actually choose what move you just made ! thats how DUM it is. its the only time THAT happens in chessed.
28 days ago
0
#65
Should all chess records in Italy pre 1880 be struck from history because they knew the en passant rule but chose to not play it. They could argue they interpreted the rule as not being valid pre 1880 but valid post 1880.
28 days ago
0
#66
Of course we should question rules.Why not there must be a reason….. Why can the king not move “ out of check” by castling when the reason given is that it would move through squares under attack.
That is just not right. There are positions where the lines in between the king and rook are NOT attacked . The king is simply “ in check”. The king always moves to go out of check.
Castling escapes the check
Logic says
1. Is the King in check. Answer yes. Action: Move the king out of check or block the path of the check
2. Is Castling a legal move.Yes. If the fields between the king and rook are under attack. No ….. If the king has moved .No….They are sound reasons … the fields are under attack or the position for castling has been breached by king moves. But the king never moved
3. But if the king is checked but the fields inbetween are not attacked then why is castling not the same as blocking if the king has not moved AND castling is in a legal position. It’s just a rule with no logic. An escape path with beauty would make chess more interesting
It is just a rule . That’s fair enough. We should never question it. Like the Italians never questioned a rule….. until they did by not adopting the rule for years with legal recognised chess tournaments.😇😇😇
Every piece moves the way they do. Every rule in chess is created and followed. You can do certain moves and others are illegal.
Are we to just carry on without being curious .
The definition I outlined for why the king can’t castle when in check is because it has to move “ through or into potential danger”. …. which it isn’t
Is that the official explanation or is there another one.
Im certain I’m wrong but no one can tell me why
Im just curious that a chess rule is a rule and should never be questioned.
A knight moves a certain way full stop. No need to explain why. But are there other rules that are open to interpretation as I brought for discussion in this thread. Or are they all black and white don’t ask questions because they are the rules and have solid logic behind them
There is not a single rule of chess which is "open to interpretation", period and fullstop.
Of course you can make your own rules of the game, and set up a chess server where people will be able to play YOUR game under YOUR rules (the Lichess code is opensource and available to anyone). I can safely predict that you will feel loneliness.