En passant

Sort:
Hartsville54

Approximately 500 years ago the option to move a pawn forward two squares on its first move to speed up the game was introduced along with the e.p. rule. If you have a pawn on the fifth rank and an adjacent pawn moves up two squares you can capture that pawn as if it only moves forward one square. But you must do this on your next turn because your opponent could move the same pawn forward if you did anything else. But what if you did some thing that required your opponent to answer that move, say a check, threat of mate, or even a series of checks. i.e. _c5 b5 (the b5 could be captured e.p.) 1. B moves giving check, B moves interposing 2. BxB+ KxB 3. Queen moves giving check, Queen interposing 4. QxQ KxQ 4 moves have been played and my opponent could NEVER move from the hypotheical b6 to b5 square. Even though e.p. is not a legal move within the rules of chess isn't this an oversite to say the least.

EscherehcsE
Hartsville54 wrote:

Approximately 500 years ago the option to move a pawn forward two squares on its first move to speed up the game was introduced along with the e.p. rule. If you have a pawn on the fifth rank and an adjacent pawn moves up two squares you can capture that pawn as if it only moves forward one square. But you must do this on your next turn because your opponent could move the same pawn forward if you did anything else. But what if you did some thing that required your opponent to answer that move, say a check, threat of mate, or even a series of checks. i.e. _c5 b5 (the b5 could be captured e.p.) 1. B moves giving check, B moves interposing 2. BxB+ KxB 3. Queen moves giving check, Queen interposing 4. QxQ KxQ 4 moves have been played and my opponent could NEVER move from the hypotheical b6 to b5 square. Even though e.p. is not a legal move within the rules of chess isn't this an oversite to say the least.

I can't decide whether this is a history lesson, a chess puzzle, or a question to be answered...

Hartsville54

Well I guess all three! Butt the third is the most relevant?

EscherehcsE

I'm not absolutely sure I understand the question, but I think I do. The option to respond with en passant is subservient to having your king checked. If your king is checked, you must get out of check or lose the game, so in that case the possibility of playing en passant must take a back seat. I don't really see that situation as an oversight; It's more of a precedence of rules.

EscherehcsE

P.S. - While I was typing my last post, I noticed that the Chess.com spell checker doesn't understand the word "passant". What's up wif dat, lol?

Arnaut10

There is a spell checker on chess.com?

EscherehcsE
Arnaut10 wrote:

There is a spell checker on chess.com?

idk, I assumed it was. Maybe it's my browser? lol

Hartsville54

I completely understand the rule and have applied it to my games over 60 years. The point or observation is should this rule be amended to account for this situation. For years we played under the 50 move rule then someone pointed out that some situations can take longer so it was change to 75 (I think for B and R against R) endgames. Amending the rules is not something new, it may interest you to know that e.p. was not allowed in Italy until 1881 you could also castle by placing your K on h1 and R on e1.

EscherehcsE
Hartsville54 wrote:

I completely understand the rule and have applied it to my games over 60 years. The point or observation is should this rule be amended to account for this situation. For years we played under the 50 move rule then someone pointed out that some situations can take longer so it was change to 75 (I think for B and R against R) endgames. Amending the rules is not something new, it may interest you to know that e.p. was not allowed in Italy until 1881 you could also castle by placing your K on h1 and R on e1.

Well, I guess the chess federations could clarify the en passant rule to cover this scenario, but I really don't think it's necessary. It's simply an order of rule precedence. Getting checked requires that you immediately get out of check, or you lose the game. Any other potential response must wait. Anyway, that's my opinion. Maybe others will jump in with their opinions.

Martin_Stahl
EscherehcsE wrote:
Arnaut10 wrote:

There is a spell checker on chess.com?

idk, I assumed it was. Maybe it's my browser? lol

 

It's browser based 

EscherehcsE
Martin_Stahl wrote:
EscherehcsE wrote:
Arnaut10 wrote:

There is a spell checker on chess.com?

idk, I assumed it was. Maybe it's my browser? lol

 

It's browser based 

Yeah, after I made that stupid comment, I thought about it for a minute, haha...

but thanks for the confirmation. :-)

Ubik42
I don’t understand the problem. There are lots of times I would like to do something, but cannot because my king is in check. It’s a chess game.
jimmyedelman
I am not being permitted to take en passant in a game on this app right now. What’s going on?
Ubik42
if you are talking about your game with Parmensanluvr, the pawn must move 2 squares for you to be able to take by en passant
Hartsville54

Jimmy other than the issue mentioned by ubik42, check and see if your pawn was in an "absolute pin," if e.p. was a legal move then you may have a programming glitch?

mpaetz

     I assume that when your opponent moved his pawn forward two spaces he opened a diagonal for a bishop or queen that put your king in check. As in every other situation, you MUST respond to the check. That means you can't capture the pawn on that move and so your option to do so is gone.