En Passant is not something I ever strive for. It's just something I do in passing.
How many use "En Passant?"
Sort:
I always use En Passant, regardless of position. To decline an En Passant capture is considered ungentlemanly.
don't really bother with it. it's kinda dweeby.
May 23, 2015
0
#25
Knightly_News wrote:
En Passant is not something I ever strive for. It's just something I do in passing.
May 23, 2015
0
#27
Knightly_News wrote:
En Passant is not something I ever strive for. It's just something I do in passing.
That's the kind of stupid joke my dad makes... so naturally I had to share it with him.
Like the one where Kasparov took an hour to pass the salt after swallowing the salt shaker.
DrSpudnik wrote:
Whenever you start to play with someone who isn't big into chess, you have to point out the e.p. rule and explain it endlessly so that when they jump past your pawn on the 5th, they won't accuse you of making up stuff.
That has to be the most accurate explaination
varelse1 wrote:
Knightly_News wrote:
Ever taken on a newer player, who, priding themselves on their sophistication, and ready to show you they know what's up, takes the en passant option, just because they can, even though doing so sets them up for catastrophe?
Oh yes, I've played that guy/gal many times.
Yeah, new players always trying to show off thier knowledge by doing an en passant when you shouldn't. Ha ha.
.....
WAIT! I DO THAT!
I use it 99/100 when my opponent plays a pawn up 2 squares to block a diagonal check, usually the player is in dire straits when they have to block checks with that move.
One confusing thing I find is that some times it is very hard to come to a conclusion when deciding on when I should allow my opponent to do En-Passant to me, do I force the issue by moving 2 squares or should I just move 1. I sometimes want my opponent to take E.P and could acheive the same by just moving 1 square if I think they should take but moving 1 square allows them to leave it there.
you can always tell a backstabber by his use of en passant.
The comparison is undeniable
its a facet of the game I have yet to explore.
Being utterly facile, I will compare it to people who complain about bluffing in poker. Its part of the game and is a useful strategy.
Please explain how 'en passant' is backstabbing and I will
have a better understanding of whether your reasoning is valid or
not.
Thanks
Sincerely
Seph
Over to you, Glorax.
but first a word from our sponsor;
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/one-move-chess-could-do-without?lc=1#last_comment
It looks like the consensus is to play "en passant" if both understand it can be used. Otherwise, why argue if it is a surprise and disrupts the game. Chess should be interesting, yet fun.
Ever taken on a newer player, who, priding themselves on their sophistication, and ready to show you they know what's up, takes the en passant option, just because they can, even though doing so sets them up for catastrophe?
Oh yes, I've played that guy/gal many times.