En passant should be abolished

En passant was invented in 1881, more than A THOUSAND years after chess itself. It has nothing to do with the original set of rules and should therefore be abolished immediatly. 

doesnt really serve a good purpose anyway

And I also don`t think it matches good with the normal rules, chess is meant to be a complicated game with simple rules

no enpassant makes sense also it can create beautiful mates

Those mates are just memes, you would need to get the king on the 5 rank to mate him and it doesn`t make sense AT ALL as it changes the way how pieces can move temporarely, which is not in the game anywhere else

It does seem that humans have changed the rules of chess so much over the centuries that it leaves us all wondering sometimes, how does this make sense?

Plus-minus 300 years.

Also, the whole opening post makes no sense.

No, it should not.

OTOH, using your logic, I will agree that e.p. should be abolished, if you agree that the Q can only move one square at a time. Agreed?

MrChatty is awesome. ⭐

Castling used to require two moves. Should we go back to that, too? And, of course, en passant was introduced after pawns could move two squares on turn one. Want to remove that, as well?

I like this discussion. If even CPUs have difficulty understanding what us humans have created then we're bound to struggle with it too. To be real honest, I like standard chess the way it is. I just like it when people are willing to question it & think a little different, that's all. Fischer did that when he invented 960. He was a bit of a madman but he was trying something different & that's Einstein like thinking.

No, because this is not just a new way to move, it`s basically capturing a piece that isn´t even there.

We play chess using the rules that were established in the late middle ages. That's when the Queen and Bishop were given vast new powers. The pawn was given the power to move two spaces on its first turn. When the pawn got this new power, the en passant rule was introduced to make it harder to just lock up the position. This is the chess we've been playing since around 1500

It was specifically created to not change the game too much when pawns were allowed to move two squares on the first move. We’ve never really had chess without both rules at the same time. So if you don’t want en passant, you need to say goodbye to pawns moving two squares.

The Pawn moved through the line of fire and the opponent has the option of capturing the pawn moving through that line of fire or not. It makes total sense.

The reason en passant was introduced to the game was because pawns were made able to move 2 squares from starting rank. Why is this important? Without en passant you could just go past a pawn that was otherwise 'blocking' the pawn from becoming a passed pawn. Getting a passed pawn can be game changing.

If en passant would be removed, we would also have to remove the pawn's ability to move 2 steps. This would make games slower and positions would almost always be closed.

Wasn't it en passant is a move for countering pawn ability to move 2 steps on the first move? If you suggested to erase en passant,then you also imo have to erase pawn ability to move 2 step on the first move. In conclusion, I'm against it. Note : I'm not an expert's about en passant, whaf i said is only from what i heard from other people.

Yeah but WHY? How does it “counter” it exactly???