En Passant...putting King in check?

Sort:
krudsparov

@lagomorph, of course it's not logical Spock, but that's the point of the discusion, clearly the pawn rest on d5 on the board, but in the concept of en passant it never made it there, hence the paradox. 

uri65
krudsparov wrote:

@lagomorph, of course it's not logical Spock, but that's the point of the discusion, clearly the pawn rest on d5 on the board, but in the concept of en passant it never made it there, hence the paradox. 

There is no "concept of en passant". There are rules of chess. According to this rules the pawn has made it to d5 and will stay there until it is captured.

uri65
Aeraaa wrote:
Scottrf wrote:
Aeraaa wrote:

Black should be awarded the point. The one giving the check is his Bishop, not his pawn. cxd does not put the white king out of check, while the d5 move does that to the black king.

 

In an en passant, the concept is that the pawn never gets to d5 as you capture it as if it had only moved one square.

I understand what you say and you have a point. We're talking about a matter of mili-tempos here (I hope my made up term makes a bit of sense). The moment the white pawn is ready to cut down its black counterpart, it gets informed that the king is mated, thus the attack never happens. It is one of the paradoxes of the pawns "defying time" when in 2nd or 7th rank and moving twice as fast as usual.

What Scottrf says is a total nonsense and there is no need to introduce mili-tempos. Chess rules are absolutely clear. Black moves his pawn d7-d5. When the black move is completed his pawn is on d5 and will stay there until it is captured. White capture en passant happens on white move, his c5 pawn captures black's d5 pawn and goes to d6. However this move doesn't put white king out of check and is therefore illegal.

amiakr8

Exactly

krudsparov
uri65 wrote:
krudsparov wrote:

@lagomorph, of course it's not logical Spock, but that's the point of the discusion, clearly the pawn rest on d5 on the board, but in the concept of en passant it never made it there, hence the paradox. 

There is no "concept of en passant". There are rules of chess. According to this rules the pawn has made it to d5 and will stay there until it is captured.

Of course there's a "concept of en passant" the pawn makes it to d5  and nobody's disputing the rules of chess. The "concept of en passant" is, it was captured "in passing" ie on d6. No one is arguing with the legality, we know the rules, just the fact that if it was captured in passing, it creates the conundrum that's been discussed, it was a rhetorical statement not a legal one.         

uri65
krudsparov wrote:
uri65 wrote:
krudsparov wrote:

@lagomorph, of course it's not logical Spock, but that's the point of the discusion, clearly the pawn rest on d5 on the board, but in the concept of en passant it never made it there, hence the paradox. 

There is no "concept of en passant". There are rules of chess. According to this rules the pawn has made it to d5 and will stay there until it is captured.

Of course there's a "concept of en passant" the pawn makes it to d5  and nobody's disputing the rules of chess. The "concept of en passant" is, it was captured "in passing" ie on d6. No one is arguing with the legality, we know the rules, just the fact that if it was captured in passing, it creates the conundrum that's been discussed, it was a rhetorical statement not a legal one.         

I just think it's a very bad idea to use some home-brewed "concept of en passant" that you don't find anywhere else. Just check Scottrf posts #5,7,9,25,31,37,49,51. May be it's just a trolling but his posts are total nonsense - all because of the "concept of en passant" which exists in his imagination only.

lfPatriotGames

I dont know why some people try to make simple things more complicated. It seems to me the rules of in passing are exactly the same as the "concept" of in passing. The pawn moves up two squares, passing a square (and a pawn next to it), so its subject to capture. If it gets captured it's done by a normal pawn capture, diagonally. What I dont understand is how someone can say something like never really reaching the 5th rank when that's exactly what the "concept" requires.

krudsparov

But the point is it's deemed to be captured (in this case) on d6 before reaching d5, that's why en passant can only be used immediately after the pawn moves 2 squares. If you wait a move, en passant can't be used as you're too slow, the pawn's already passed. As for it not been found in chess literature, the name says it all, "en passant" in passing, ie before it moved past, otherwise it would have been called "après c'est passé" 

amiakr8

Bit since the capture can't be made until the pawn is on d5, and it occurs while the pawn is on d5, the never made it part is false.  I don't understand why something so simple is made out to be complicated.

uri65
krudsparov wrote:

But the point is it's deemed to be captured (in this case) on d6 before reaching d5, that's why en passant can only be used immediately after the pawn moves 2 squares. If you wait a move, en passant can't be used as you're too slow, the pawn's already passed. As for it not been found in chess literature, the name says it all, "en passant" in passing, ie before it moved past, otherwise it would have been called "après c'est passé" 

Ok, let's see. En passant is called "en passant" and it's deemed to be captured on d6 before reaching d5. And bishop is called "bishop" and is deemed to pray few times a day. And knight is called "knight" and is deemed to wear a heavy armour. But in Russian bishop is called "elephant" and knight is called "horse", so both are deemed to shit all over the board. Now I am confused about which interpretation is more correct conceptually?

Shall I go on with this refreshing chess theory or was it enough for today?

amiakr8

The condition for en passant doesn't exist until the pawn is pushed to d5. For the pawn to never make it to d5 white would have to make 2 consecutive moves.  En passant doesn't deem it captured before making it to d5; it allows the pawn to be captured as if it were moved to d6. Anyway, I'm done; not just for today.

ChessianHorse
Obviously black wins by d5#.

To the people insisting on that the pawn never reaches d5:
Imagine the pawn were actually captured „on its way to“ d5. Then White has made their move this turn (they chose to capture the pawn), and since it‘s now black‘s turn, black can capture the white king and wins.
my137thaccount
jonathanpiano13 wrote:
Obviously black wins by d5#.

To the people insisting on that the pawn never reaches d5:
Imagine the pawn were actually captured „on its way to“ d5. Then White has made their move this turn (they chose to capture the pawn), and since it‘s now black‘s turn, black can capture the white king and wins.

Capturing the king is not allowed according to the FIDE Laws of Chess. If somehow this position were to show up on the board (it cannot if the rules have been followed), then black would win not by capturing the king but by making a passing move which delivers the checkmate to white.

ChessianHorse
I obviously know that. My reply was, as described, to people who thinks about „the logic“ of the official rules, e.g checkmate ends the game because capturing the king next move is unavoidable and en Passant as capturing the pawn „in passing“.
ChessianHorse
And I think my reply shows that also by this „logic“ it still makes sense that black wins, as a lot of people have been arguing against using these „philosophical rules“.
lfPatriotGames
krudsparov wrote:

But the point is it's deemed to be captured (in this case) on d6 before reaching d5, that's why en passant can only be used immediately after the pawn moves 2 squares. If you wait a move, en passant can't be used as you're too slow, the pawn's already passed. As for it not been found in chess literature, the name says it all, "en passant" in passing, ie before it moved past, otherwise it would have been called "après c'est passé" 

I really dont understand what you mean in that first sentence. How is it possible to capture on d6 "before" reaching d5? I understand capturing on d6 AFTER reaching d5, what do you mean by before? The first persons move has to be over before the other person can move. For the move to be over, the pawn has to be on d5. It seems to me d6 is just where they decided the capture is supposed to take place. Castling and promotion are weird rules just like en passant. When writing that rule they probably could have said the capture could take place on d5 which would be a weird way for a pawn to capture, but a rook jumping over a king is a weird rule too.  But no matter where the pawn gets captured, it seems to me the concept requires it be on d5 first, where it passed something. 

Lagomorph
krudsparov wrote:

But the point is it's deemed to be captured (in this case) on d6 before reaching d5, that's why en passant can only be used immediately after the pawn moves 2 squares.

Only in your mind I am afraid. You have created a fiction for an en passant capture that does not exist.

 

 The rule states clearly the pawn is captured after it is placed on d5 or it cannot be an en passant capture.

 

If the rule was called something other that "en passant" we would not be having this stupid discussion.

helgerud

- Who to say there is no grey area in chess ..?...

helgerud
LouStule wrote:

If taking a pawn En Passant gives a discovered check to an opponents king...can you do it? I can't figure out why I cant do it.

Maybe not if you compromise you own King in the process ?

A Pawn moving two forward from 2. rank is legal standard.

Any piece leaving King in check if moving can not do so ...

So, where is the question here !?!

Qoko88
uri65 wrote:

And knight is called "knight" and is deemed to wear a heavy armour. But in Russian bishop is called "elephant" and knight is called "horse", so both are deemed to shit all over the board.

Damnit you made me laugh out loud at 1:30am grin.png

As for the actual conceptual point of the d-pawn never reaching d5: if En Passant would symbolize a Black soldier being stopped in his tracks that's trying to outflank a White soldier, Black can kill the White King in the distraction the d-pawn creates. Arguing that White would execute both attacks simultaneously (cxd6 & Bxa8), Black would probably have enough time to also execute Bxh3.

Mind that this is what the conceptual analogy is:

  1. En Passant: stopping a passing pawn, so the d-pawn never reaches d5.
  2. Check(mate): attacking the enemy king with the intention of capturing.

In the actual rules, 1....d5# 0-1, no questions asked.