I still don't think en passant is a good rule

It takes awhile to write a limerick to let someone down easy. Cruel limericks come much faster.

aahhahahahahaahah I never even thought of that. What a guy.

en passant makes a lot of sense. It's a good way of reconciling the double-pawn move with capturing fairness.

 When I was about to beat 2400 player he castled and escaped, so is castling a stupid rule, too? Just shut up and play by the rules or find another entertainment

Poker....football...tennis....ice hockey?

You would get a lot of blocked positions if it were not for en passant (or the possibility of it). The pawns move linearly but capture diagonally, and they cannot move back. Hence an additional rule is needed to make sure that captures are possible.

ASpieboy is totally right. The general point is that pawns on adjacent files shouldn't be able to pass each other without the possibility of being captured. So the two-move-forward rule meshes perfectly with en passant.

Cheese. Random word. Now for the related topic. En passant is a good rule, and so is castling, I can't see why all you people are complaining about not beating people because of those rules, it's your own fault, you should of thought about it before making tactics, a move etc.

The Pawn has a soul ,

life has rules as well , like  it or not ,

Historical note: Originally pawns could only move one square on their first move as on all other moves. After many centuries, the rule was changed just a few hundred years ago to speed up the game. The purpose of the moving-two-squares-on-its-first-move pawn rule was to speed up the OPENING. It was never the intent to make it so a pawn could evade a pawn on an adjacent file in the endgame and race down to queen. Hence, the two-square exception also required the en passant exception so as not to change the game too much from the way it had always been played--just to speed up the opening.

quote the great Joe Henry Blackburn "my opponent left his whiskey en prise, so i took it en passant"  he obviously like the rule and he was a great player. im gonna trust old Joe Henry on this one.  where would us chess geeks be if we couldnt crack jokes about en passant, en prise, j'adoube, and zugzwang?! 

I recall some of my classmates got a deer in the headlights look when I played en passant vs them.  They did it again when I said it was a legal move.  And a final time when they looked it up on the internet and found out I was telling the truth.

En passant is a good rule IMO, western chess already is among the most cramped varients (chinese chess for example has the same amount of pieces on 90 squares).  Personally I'm just glad we have the queen or else the game would be rediculously dull (erm, wait, isn't the berlin defense very popular?  Crap!)

I had a friend tell me that en passant meant that a pawn could capture en passant anytime, anyplace, any piece.

We agreed not to use that rule, and I killed him with the ole fianchetto bishop hitting the b/g pawn when the defending bishop moves. I hadn't played a game of chess for years before that.

Is he currently working in a grocery stocking the "Dairy" section with eggs and Snickers bars?

Yes. And he's putting the fish in the seafood section... oh wait that doesn't work.

Fish is meat though.

I don't like games where things jump. Frogger, checkers, jumping lacks, leapfrog... No thanks. I'll stay on the ground thank you very much.

Knights?

Backgammon doesn't jump too much though that should be ok for you.

edit: there is also alot of hitting, that sound like fun.

No thank you.

Perhaps 'en passant' is just an imperfect way of accommodating the real problem, something that should never have been introduced in the first place:  the two-square pawn move.

Down with zippy pawns?