No
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant
en passant
Sort:
Nov 28, 2014
0
#4
The reasoning behind the en passant rule is that it isn't fair that a pawn can avoid capture by an adjacent enemy pawn altogether by jumping out two squares on its first move, which avoids passing through the capturing diagonal, so under that one circumstance they allow such a pawn capture, sort of like a retroactive move. It's interesting to note that creating one exception in chess, the 2-square pawn move on only its first move (which was done only to speed up the game), forced creation of another exception, that special pawn capture, to deal with the repercussions of the first exception. It's sort of like one lie giving birth to another lie to cover up the first lie, and so on.
So, no, en passant applies only to pawns, due to the reasoning above.
Why can't you believe it? Are you the great Grandmaster?
Nov 28, 2014
0
#6
Somebody else posted this same question a few weeks ago, so apparently people really do think pieces can be involved in en passant. What can I say?
I don't know your rating, but I've been playing for more than fifty years and I can tell you ther're plenty fine chessplayers better than the both of us who picked up the game by word of mouth and have never heard of en passant. Nobody should be putting down an impatient or discouraging word with somebody trying to learn about Chess.
And it still didn't fully fix the problem that was created when the 2-square pawn move was introduced, because you have to capture en passant immediately or forfeit your right to do so. This changes things quite a bit compared to the way they were prior to the 2-square pawn move. For example, in the past when pawns were limited to only ever moving one square at a time, something like this could happen:
Instead of white having to capture the b-pawn immediately with his a-pawn, or forfeiting the right to do so, he can capture the c-pawn with his knight, placing the king in check, and then capture the b-pawn with his a-pawn, getting both pawns for free. With modern rules it would be different, i.e., if the b-pawn moves 2 squares, he can't capture the c-pawn with the knight and then capture en passant with his a-pawn. No way to force getting both pawns for free.
Yes, pieces can take en passant, but only before they were promoted.
Nov 28, 2014
0
#11
kaynight wrote:
En passant is a basic rule of chess. Cannot believe this.
yup. totally agree. i mean, they didn't mention anything else with en passant when you learned it, right??????
Nov 28, 2014
0
#12
owltuna wrote:
thecentipede wrote:
so a pawn could be en prise and taken en passant?
en deed.
thats preposterous! en garde!
DomCJR wrote:
I don't know your rating, but I've been playing for more than fifty years and I can tell you ther're plenty fine chessplayers better than the both of us who picked up the game by word of mouth and have never heard of en passant. Nobody should be putting down an impatient or discouraging word with somebody trying to learn about Chess.
I do agree with your last sentence although I'm not sure what a "fine chessplayer" consists of, seeing as your definition does not involve "knowing all the rules of the game" as a prerequisite.
Fried pickles, fried pork rinds, fried pepsi
Dec 25, 2014
0
#15
to get back to the basic question - we have a 2300 player saying pieces can take en passantI guess we need to find a FIDE rule book
Only pawns. Even I know that!!!
Apr 12, 2015
0
#19
alexm2310 wrote:
nah just a botto of dragon soup, tap us a snout will ye?
Dragon soup? That is the most absurd and ludicrous thing which We have ever heard! @^%)(*$%** >:[
Apr 12, 2015
0
#20
kaynight wrote:
It is Scottish vernacular for alcohol and nicotine.
Thanks K for clearing that up. Shoulda known that. We are always amazed at how malleable the English language becomes coming from the mouth of a Scot. Seems like the Irish and Scots have a positive genius for this sort of thing. >:[
can pieces other than a pawn take en passant?