Bishops & Queens Should Be Able To Capture En Passant

It's an imperfection in the rules of chess that they aren't allowed to.

The whole point of the rule is to stop pawns from being able to jump past capture if moving two spaces. However, usually later in games, pawns can do just this - passing capture by bishops / queens - to pressurise opponents pieces. In certain circumstances this can give an unfair advantage to the pawn pusher which really shouldn't exist.

The whole reason for the rule is that pawns used to only be able to move one square and when the rules were changed to allow the first move to be two squares en passant was added. That prevented pushing the pawn past a neighboring pawn to lock up the position but it's a different situation with queens and bishops as that push does not potentially lock up the position.

I think you've kind of rephrased what I was saying with the exception of the "locking up the position".

I don't really understand what you mean by that. Attempting a two space jump with a pawn past another doesn't really lock anything as far as I can see - It just allows jumping past another pawn, which itself is locking the position up for the attacking pawn side.

The two space pawn push past a bishop can potentially open up the position for the defending player and allow them to escape potential back row threats. Hence it's it's an unfair advantage to be able to create escape routes which wouldn't exist against a pawn.

I was thinking more along the lines of pawn chains, where the capturing pawn is otherwise blocked by an opposing pawn.

If you extended the idea to bishops and queens, there's no reason that a piece all the way across the board couldn't capture the pawn if it moved past a square attacked by the piece.

Might be an interesting variant I guess.

You've snookered me Bill.

I'm not sure how interesting a variant it would be I suppose because it happens very rarely in a way which gives the pawn pusher an unfair advantage.

I think the way it usually plays out when I encounter it, is that I have a rook threatening a back row mate and another piece threatening in the middle. Then they fire in the double pawn move, supported by a neighbouring third rank pawn, and attack my piece in the middle.

It's at this point I notice I have a bishop on the flank which I could have sacrificed en Passant (if allowed) and kept the pressure on. Instead - because of this advantageous two square pawn break, jumping past the old rule one square move which would have meant capture - their king now has a free square to move to and my central piece is attacked.

It's very rarely this happens but when it does I'm always struck by this gap in the rules...

Another gap in the rules: a bishop and a knight can't castle with each other.

Another gap: when a rook reaches the 8th rank, it can't promote.

If we walk the road of insanity, why stop right after a single step like you did?

Er, perhaps because - and please, do correct me if I'm wrong - these rules have absolutely nothing to do with the rule amendment which allowed pawns to move two spaces on their initial move...