Is Én Pasant really cheating?
Sort:
0
#2
The only chess rule people argue about? There are dozens of threads about how stalemate is stupid and people also argue about whether castling is possible if the rook is attacked. It’s a rule because it’s a rule, just like it’s a rule that horsies can jump over things but nothing else can.
Lol, I remember I was playin an otb tournament, i was completely lost and...
1c6O-1 wrote:
Lol, I remember I was playin an otb tournament, i was completely lost and...
Lol....
anikolay wrote:
En Pasant is the only chess rule that people argue about.
Which planet are you from? People on this website argue more about Stalemate than about en passant.
En passant is an exception to the exception. Pawns only move one square at a time EXCEPT that they can move two squares instead of one if they haven't moved yet EXCEPT that they can't use this two-step privilege to sneak past an enemy Pawn. That's where en passant comes in.
I think en passant is fair since(like @1c6O-1 showed) leads to interesting tactics/games.
I’ll reword it lol. Sorry.
anikolay wrote:
Let’s face it. We’ve all came across En Pasant. A move where the pawn magically takes another pawn, and switches to another column. Maybe the creators of chess got bored and decided to add another rule in chess, that doesn’t make sense at all. I mean... I get it. En Pasant is a rule that we must follow, just like an ordinary “queen moves there, Knight moves there etc.” But is it really in the right place? Some people even consider it a hack, but obviously it isn’t since chess doesn’t just rely on online platforms.
Some people consider it a “Fake chess-rule”, while others say that it adds more interest to the game. Although En Pasant isn’t -way to complicated-, it causes lots of confusion and arguments.
What do you think? Is En Pasant meant to be a rule in chess?
hmm
Pawns used to only move 1 square. The "en passant" rule came in effect to mitigate the power of the 2-cases rule in middle/late game.
Personally I learned it when I started at 5 years old so it never confused me (and I'm French so the word never confused me either). But most people who, i'd say, rage against the rule is only because they weren't taught properly at first. I mean it's in the beginners section, not an advanced trick.
More power to the little guys !
Some people who don't know chess say its cheating, those who never heard it argue with you, some say its a rule of chess and has to be followed, really confusing. So some say that it's cheating and some say its not. Depends on how much people have learned chess.
ModernComedy wrote:
I’m not sure. I mean, sometimes its helpful but sometimes it costs you the game
yeah. . . like 1c6O-1
white_wolf2 wrote:
ModernComedy wrote:
I’m not sure. I mean, sometimes its helpful but sometimes it costs you the game
yeah. . . like 1c60-1
***1c6o-1 lol
white_wolf2 wrote:
blueemu wrote:
anikolay wrote:
En Pasant is the only chess rule that people argue about.
Which planet are you from? People on this website argue more about Stalemate than about en passant.
En passant is an exception to the exception. Pawns only move one square at a time EXCEPT that they can move two squares instead of one if they haven't moved yet EXCEPT that they can't use this two-step privilege to sneak past an enemy Pawn. That's where en passant comes in.
lol if you dont know what to say, dont say anything.
1c6O-1 wrote:
Lol, I remember I was playin an otb tournament, i was completely lost and...
lol noobs but en passant his a fair rule and only a genius can think of such a brilliant rule!
in computer games, i've probably NEVER used en passent, but in actually LIVE games, i've probably used it ten times or so 
Lol
But that's not the case with me
Please Sign Up to comment.
If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.
I don't think its an unnecessary rule. Chess without en passant could lead us to way too many closed positions.