En Passant...putting King in check?

Ok let me just present a flawless logic against pawn didnt reach d5. Black king was in check, He ordered pawn to go to d5 to block the check. The moment pawn leaves his square, white gets mated. So when pawn is on d6 white pawn wont take it. 😂

Stockfish says its legal and is, in fact, a checkmate for Black

That's an interesting puzzle shown by blueemu. Yes, the answer is that 1...d5 does mate, but if you don't get what's interesting about the puzzle, here's another way to explain it. The idea of an en passant capture is that the captured P moved AS IF it had moved only one step forward. Hence in the diagram, with 1...d5, White could argue that the e.p. capture reply means that the BP had only moved one step to d6. Now note the position if Black had tried to play 1...d6: the BK would still be in check and White could have "captured" it first, before Black's mate becomes effective. That's how White claims to have delivered mate first.

Yes, exactly. White has proven himself to be a master of sophistry rather than chess.

Black wins

En passant isn't possible here because you are not removing the check on your king. En passant does not happen instantly as the pawn passes but it is basically abnormal move that happens as a normal move after your opponent has moved.

I haven't read any definition, but I've heard people say "in passing". I thought the rule was it's possible or optional to take the pawn ONLY if it has already passed. The only way to pass is to move up the two squares on the first move. It seems like it HAS to pass first, then it can be taken on the next move, so in this case it would be required for the move to end with the pawn on d5. D6 is just the place it gets captured. The rules could have just as easily been written so that it gets captured on d5, not d6. Either way it seems like it's required that the previous move end with the pawn on d5. If it didn't the rule wouldn't exist.

It's like the 10th time I've said this on this thread. I know how it works by the rules.

I'm just pointing out the disconnect between how it works and what it's supposed to represent conceptually.

I dont understand how the concept could be any different than the pawn ending up on d5, which is the end of the move. Isn't the concept "passing"? If the pawn doesn't pass, how could it be taken en passant?

If it ends up on d5 it can't be taken. Pawns don't move like that. It has to take as it's on d6, in the middle of the move.

I'm gonna bail out because we are just going round in circles.

OK

I just read some of your other comments, where the capture happens as if the pawn never gets to d5. But I think every capture works that way. The previous move has to end with a piece ending on a square, then on the next move, it's taken as if it were never on that square. This rule is different because it's taken on a square it was never on, but I think that's the whole point, or concept. It has to pass first.

But that is nonsense since en passant is not a forced take.

Your logic is 100 percent WRONG

The pawn IS on d5!  PERIOD!

White can place his pawn on d6, the square that was PASSED and the pawn that PASSED the d6 square is removed IF AND ONLY IF THREE CONDITIONS ARE MET:

1) The pawn passed the attacked square on the last move played, not earlier

2) The player chooses to capture (it is optional)

3) Most important - the move MUST BE LEGAL

In the example, condition number 3 is not met.  It is not legal.  So en passant is not possible.

This horsesh*t about how the pawn never reached d5 or is on d6 or whatever other crap is baloney.  It PASSED d6.  It was never on d6.  En Passant means in passing, when you capture, your pawn goes to the PASSED square, not the square the captured pawn occupies.  A white pawn on d6 does not block the black check, and so white lost!

Scottrf argues that, logically, captures can only happen when a piece lands on a square an enemy piece was occupying... but what the hell does logic have to do with it? Are you imagining knights and bishops running around in a field with nets and rope trying to capture each other?

People trying to apply logic to chess, as if it's a game that simulates war or something.

People forgetting that the rules of chess exist simply to create a game rich in strategy and tactics.

Scottrf, I remember you from years ago, and I like you, but you're being crazy.

#2: Black was the winner because chesskid.

The animation for en passant in chesskid is a ufo zapping the pawn away, not the pawn being intercepted

Just bail out because you are talking bollox

It's not bollocks, he understands ths rule that the pawn stops on d5 blocking check but the concept of en passant means it was captured on the way and never made it to d5 creating the paradox. We know black wins but the rule could easily have gone the other way.

Obviously, black because capturing d6 does not block the check.

This is not logical Captain.

We know that ep capture is optional. We know if it is not elected the pawn rests on its destination square d5. If we look at a board position before an ep capture takes place the pawn is clearly on d5.

FIDE rules on ep. state that a player "may capture this opponent's pawn as though the latter had been moved only one square" (my emphasis).  The words "as though" clearly indicate that it did not move one square to d6, but can be captured as though it did.

There is nothing in the above which supports the view the pawn never made it to d5.