A country
Is Én Pasant really cheating?
Sort:
Dec 14, 2020
0
#23
I think en passant should not be allowed.
I also think stalemate should be a loss for the side that has no moves, but it's a rule, and it will probably never ever ever be changed 
True
CoolBoi wrote:
A country
ok, thanks, didnt know there was acountry like that!
I dont think enpassant is in the wrong place aa 8t only allows you to capture a paqn on Tue very next move as if the pawn had only moved one step as it would normally
Dec 14, 2020
0
#27
MISTER_McCHESS wrote:
I think en passant should not be allowed.
I also think stalemate should be a loss for the side that has no moves, but it's a rule, and it will probably never ever ever be changed
Disagree on both. If you're winning and a stalemate occurs, you have not completed your job of winning the game.
Another way to look at it: The point of the pawn being able to move two spaces is to speed up the game. Using that rule to avoid an attack by another pawn is an abuse of the spirit of that rule and en pasant is the remedy.
Dec 14, 2020
0
#29
hellotheretest1 wrote:
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.
En Pasant is the only chess rule that people argue about. 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?
It should be.
Look at this:
That was a complete winning position for black. But then if the rule was there they would win
Black still wins easily. Why make repetition?
Dec 14, 2020
0
#30
AussieRookie hat geschrieben:
Only in El Paso is En Pasant cheating.
That is super! I laughed so loud. Thank you.
To the first writer: I don´t understand your point. It´s a rule, that means it doesn´t change the more or less equality of both sides. So use it, when it helps you and avoid it if it would be bad for you. What is the point of arguing? And besides: Chess is an complicated game, maybe after GO the second most complex game in the world. And en passent makes this rich game even richer. If you want to play a less complex game play checkers.
And one more thing: "Maybe the creators of chess got bored and decided to add another rule in chess, that doesn’t make sense at all." Maybe it doesn´t make sense for you, but that does not mean it makes no sense....
Have a look here, and maybe you get at least a bit enlighted:
https://www.chess.com/terms/en-passant
No!
hellotheretest1 wrote:
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.
En Pasant is the only chess rule that people argue about. 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?
It should be.
Look at this:
That was a complete winning position for black. But then if the rule was there they would win
While obviously a rule of chess is a rule and this entire discussion is absurd, your gameplay here does not make any sense. Black easily wins. They just don't seem to have any idea what they are doing in that boardstate.
Dec 14, 2020
0
#33
CoolBoi wrote:
A country
El Paso is not a country. It is a city in Texas.
Texas is not a country. It is a state in the USA.
The USA is arguably a country.
Dec 14, 2020
0
#34
blueemu hat geschrieben:
CoolBoi wrote:
A country
El Paso is not a country. It is a city in Texas.
Texas is not a country. It is a state in the USA.
The USA is arguably a country.
Don´t be all too shure at this.
So-called "alternative facts" exist in the USA....
Dec 14, 2020
0
#35
blueemu wrote:
CoolBoi wrote:
A country
El Paso is not a country. It is a city in Texas.
Texas is not a country. It is a state in the USA.
The USA is arguably a country.
Yeah. But the USA is 100% classified as a country.
Dec 14, 2020
0
#36
anikolay wrote:
blueemu wrote:
CoolBoi wrote:
A country
El Paso is not a country. It is a city in Texas.
Texas is not a country. It is a state in the USA.
The USA is arguably a country.
Yeah. But the USA is 100% classified as a country.
A lot of people would class it as "a mess".
its not shure, its sure
Dec 14, 2020
0
#38
Allowing the en passant capture, together with the introduction of the two-square first move for pawns, was one of the last major rule changes in European chess, and occurred between 1200 and 1600.[a] In most places the en passant rule was adopted at the same time as allowing the pawn to move two squares on its first move, but it was not universally accepted until the Italian rules were changed in 1880. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant)
It's been part of the accepted rules since around 1880.
How can it be cheating?
And if it's cheating, is the option to move the pawn two squares as its first move then equally suspect, since it's just as old?
danielaKay wrote:
Allowing the en passant capture, together with the introduction of the two-square first move for pawns, was one of the last major rule changes in European chess, and occurred between 1200 and 1600.[a] In most places the en passant rule was adopted at the same time as allowing the pawn to move two squares on its first move, but it was not universally accepted until the Italian rules were changed in 1880. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/En_passant)
It's been part of the accepted rules since around 1880.
How can it be cheating?
And if it's cheating, is the option to move the pawn two squares as its first move then equally suspect, since it's just as old?
Fair point
wait. . . what IS el paso?