Castling does not make sense, too.
What kind of coward is this king who rushes to hide behind his rook and pawns?
en passant makes no sense
Sort:
I never understood the rule either until this thread. Makes sense now
But if you can’t move until it’s your turn, how is it that you can take my pawn as it’s in motion?
Or “in passing” as u put it
GeorgeReed420 wrote:
But if you can’t move until it’s your turn, how is it that you can take my pawn as it’s in motion?
Again, because you have to do it immediately when it's your turn after the pawn advance of tow squares. After that it's forfeit.
Castling is not able to ruin a good (closed) position, while en passant deprives you of the right to a calm and colorful game (in some cases). If you're fine with quick exchanges and handsome attacks from smartish guys who are obsessed with pushing their pawns, this rule is just created for you.
Tails204 wrote:
Castling is not able to ruin a good (closed) position, while en passant deprives you of the right to a calm and colorful game (in some cases). If you're fine with quick exchanges and handsome attacks from smartish guys who are obsessed with pushing their pawns, this rule is just created for you.
So don't push your pawns two squares forward and you're totally safe from the evil en passant rule.
Nov 17, 2021
0
#29
The en passant rule is actually pretty consistent with one of the castling rules – the king can't "jump" across an attacked square.
Like a pawn, the king moves only one square at a time, except on its first move when it has the option of going through two squares (when it castles). But in the above position, castling is illegal because the king would be passing over f1, which is attacked by the black rook. That is, the king is liable to be captured as it crosses f1, even though g1 is the destination. In the same way, the white pawn is liable to be captured by the black one when it crosses over the c3-square.
Rocky64 wrote:
The en passant rule is actually pretty consistent with one of the castling rules – the king can't "jump" across an attacked square.
Like a pawn, the king moves only one square at a time, except on its first move when it has the option of going through two squares (when it castles). But in the above position, castling is illegal because the king would be passing over f1, which is attacked by the black rook. That is, the king is liable to be captured as it crosses f1, even though g1 is the destination. In the same way, the white pawn is liable to be captured by the black one when it crosses over the c3-square.
Nov 17, 2021
0
#31
Why is the horse called a 'knight' in English? Why is the rook a sentient being? Why does stalemate count as a draw? Why do the royalty and clergy engage in the fighting? What exactly is a pawn? etc. etc.
Many things in Chess don't add up to a lot of sense. Some things are better left unquestioned.
GeorgeReed420 wrote:
I suppose if you’ve always knew about en passant then it’s not an issue but to someone who’s been playing for over a decade without it, it like finding out that 2+2=5
thats kind of a bad reason to complain... it was just a rule that wasnt told to you so you are having issue with it. its like listening to someone complain about the way a knight moves because their grandfather told them it only moves in c shapes instead of L shapes. regardless, i think it has been explained quite well. pawns should always have the opportunity to capture adjacent pawns. if you look at some GM level games, it is an important part of endgames.
i also only learnt about en passant after 5 years of playing chess last year when i started playing online during covid. it was annoying, as i had lost a game i thought i was sure to win. but i decided not to start a whole thread complaining about it.
CannedAsparagus wrote:
Why is the horse called a 'knight' in English? Why is the rook a sentient being? Why does stalemate count as a draw? Why do the royalty and clergy engage in the fighting? What exactly is a pawn? etc. etc.
Many things in Chess don't add up to a lot of sense. Some things are better left unquestioned.
You're confusing the designations of proper names to the pieces with the logical system of chess rules. As for the latter, here the en passant rule, you'll find good reasons to back up why it is a good rule which makes a lot of sense.
As for the former, it doesn't make much sense to question the historical designations, but it's an interesting study. "Rooks" are called "Elephants" in Indian and Persian languages as they've been part of their armies. Their name has been changed to "Rooks" when chess became popular in Europe, presumable because there haven't been to many elephants around in medieval ages. 
In German language the "Horse" is also called "Springer", we've got two names for that piece. "Springer" means literally "Jumper", it's the only piece which is indeed called by its action on the board – it's jumping around! 
Nov 17, 2021
0
#34
Spielkalb wrote:
CannedAsparagus wrote:
Why is the horse called a 'knight' in English? Why is the rook a sentient being? Why does stalemate count as a draw? Why do the royalty and clergy engage in the fighting? What exactly is a pawn? etc. etc.
Many things in Chess don't add up to a lot of sense. Some things are better left unquestioned.
In German language the "Horse" is also called "Springer", we've got two names for that piece. "Springer" means literally "Jumper", it's the only piece which is indeed called by its action on the board – it's jumping around!
Weiss ich, weiss ich ...
But in my head I still always call it a 'Gaul'. 
CannedAsparagus wrote:
But in my head I still always call it a 'Gaul'.
Yeah, sometimes. Or "Rappe" and "Schimmel", depending on the colour.
Rocky64 wrote:
The en passant rule is actually pretty consistent with one of the castling rules – the king can't "jump" across an attacked square.
Like a pawn, the king moves only one square at a time, except on its first move when it has the option of going through two squares (when it castles). But in the above position, castling is illegal because the king would be passing over f1, which is attacked by the black rook. That is, the king is liable to be captured as it crosses f1, even though g1 is the destination. In the same way, the white pawn is liable to be captured by the black one when it crosses over the c3-square.
I guess the king learned a thing or 2 from his own subjects and applied it in his own unique way. It's quite fascinating.
GeorgeReed420 wrote:
For a while I thought it was just a glitch until a friend told me about the en passant rule and it has ruined chess for me
If the en passant rule has ruined chess for you, there are many other games you could try. You might enjoy some of them.
Nov 17, 2021
0
#38
GeorgeReed420 wrote:
I don’t see how that could be fun, be like winning a tennis match against Stevie wonder
It doesn't have to be fun, if you get your queen trapped isn't against the rules
There are not what to do.
It is the rule.
It happens when a pawn goes through a square dominated by another pawn.
When you decide to make the move, you capture the pawn in passing (which is exactly what en passant means) while it's on that square. Since the game is turned based, you have to wait until the move has been made to actually decide to do it and can only complete that on the turn immediately after the pawn has moved 2 squares.