Screech at them until they agree it is a rule
en passant étiquette when opponent doesn't know about the rule
Yawn...time to roll out the yoga mat again, same as the last three years (no kidding), and curl up with Cody L's 98.6: how to keep ur assets alive in the woods (hint) ;( Enjoy ur comfy chairs, beds, and couches, and please listen and watch "Until We Meet Again", Dr. Strangelove version, for furthur intel.
This en passant discussion is about as fruitful as two pawns waiting for Godot.
Carry on.
Ok, so shame on me for thinking this discussion might actually help me with my dilemma but I couldn't help but read it because I ran into a situation today that relates. My buddy and I have a game going and I saw a pawn move that wins a piece... IF and only if he doesn't know the en passant rule. Which I'm guessing he doesn't. So my situation is that I can either make the pawn move AND inform him of his option to capture (I'm rated a few hundred points higher), play an actual good move, or side with the devil on my shoulder and win his knight in dishonorable fashion. Thoughts?
Thoughts?
Thought #1: Winning the Knight will TEACH him the en-passent rule. You'll be doing him a favor, really.
Thought #2: How much do you value the Knight? How much do you value your friend? Think of it as if you were exchanging pieces...
The only advice that can be offered at this time, Ormission, is to search for a suitable microclimate.
And win the game at all costs.
What is dis brah fella on about at all at all ?
"Brah" is the new "dude".
Negative. See post 1815:
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/off-topic/nobodyreallys-living-room?page=91
If someone doesn't know the en passant rule then they're most likely pretty new to the game. In that case I'd tell them about the rule before I played it so they don't get a nasty surprise and feel like I tricked them, which might put them off playing.
There actually aren't an awful lot of rules to the game and it's better to know the rules before you come across them in a competitive situation.
If it's a friendly game or you're teaching someone, do whatever makes you both happy, but make sure your student learns the rules.
Ok, so shame on me for thinking this discussion might actually help me with my dilemma but I couldn't help but read it because I ran into a situation today that relates. My buddy and I have a game going and I saw a pawn move that wins a piece... IF and only if he doesn't know the en passant rule. Which I'm guessing he doesn't. So my situation is that I can either make the pawn move AND inform him of his option to capture (I'm rated a few hundred points higher), play an actual good move, or side with the devil on my shoulder and win his knight in dishonorable fashion. Thoughts?
I shared the same sentiment as you did, brah until I had to answer the question from a morality perspective.
See posts: 528 and 548, I hope they are constructive in your pursuit of self-translucency, brah.
If someone doesn't know the en passant rule then they're most likely pretty new to the game. In that case I'd tell them about the rule before I played it so they don't get a nasty surprise and feel like I tricked them, which might put them off playing.
There actually aren't an awful lot of rules to the game and it's better to know the rules before you come across them in a competitive situation.
If it's a friendly game or you're teaching someone, do whatever makes you both happy, but make sure your student learns the rules.
The probity of your character is salient, brah. This is the answer to the entire thread, and I am not being facetious.
The answer has been achieved, then, brah, no need for furthur insights. Your observations are indeed very salivent.
The answer has been achieved, then, brah, no need for furthur insights. Your observations are indeed very salivent.
Not entirely brah, the hierarchy of learning is knowledge, comprehension, implementation, analysis/evalution and synthesis. Therefore, we, collectively, are only incipient in the development of a sophisticated answer. Now we must delve deeper in attaining the true prespicacity of this answer.
Your psychological game-playing is rudimentary and samsaric at best, brah.
Your premise is orthogonal, and is not even as hip as a Huey Lewis song.
Or he could be new...