s

It's really disturbing that I'm the only one to acknowledge this besides @RonaldJosephCote, but you're just stooping to this moron's level. Seriously, why is it okay for this person to have Hitler-esque thoughts? WTF PEOPLE.

If it is not broken, why fix it?

chasm1995 a écrit :

Why not both?

I don't see any reason to make personal attacks against the OP, though the question (if it is offered honestly and not an attempt to troll) is terribly misguided. Chess is by far the most brilliant and complex mental exercise ever created. There are reasons why it has lasted as long as it has in its current form. Making fundamental changes to it would almost certainly make it something less than the thing of beauty it is--so I wouldn't alter a bit of it.

An added note: The OP's "joke" about slaughtering old people most definitely creates the impression that this thread was indeed a troll at work.

What is up with people constantly offering "suggestions" on how to change the rules of chess?  Just because you can't grasp the positional concepts related to en passant doesn't mean the rule should be scrapped.  

There you go.

as previous posters such as GogelyMogely arleady pointed out, understanding the history of chess makes is quite clear why en passant is an important rule of chess. Education is the best antidote to ignorance. The game is full of positions (especially in the endgame) where either side would have a winning position and not a losing one if it wern't for certain fundamental aspects of the game (e.g. zugzwang). The point is to plan ahead and aviod getting into a position where you get screwed over by en passant in the first place. If that doesn't go over well with you, then don't play chess - thats just how the game is played.

Interesting responses. Adding or deleting a rule implies the game itself is flawed. I personally don't believe it is and I agree that this is the reason for its survival and for the enthusiasm of those who wish to preserve it in its current form. I am one of those purists. The game is not flawed. What is flawed continually is my understanding of it.

               I normally don't pick on kids, but the OP claims to be from India, and is incredibly sexist. i.e.,..tell us guys..., Brothers;   Most people from India have respect for life. Once you understand THAT, you'll understand the en passant rule.

Well for his second question about the elderly retired folks, this just shows he is a complete moron. Jsut another idiot starting a useless thread

A pawn jumping 2 squares and bypassing a pawn that can take it is like a paratrooper that goes past the enemy, it shoudn't be subject to capture.  

Yeah the en passant rule sux

Which brought it to its current form.

tigerprowl wrote:

" Adding or deleting a rule implies the game itself is flawed."

En passant was a rule added at one time.

          Dodger111 needs to get in the military. Let me give you your first lesson.  ANYTHING IS SUBJECT TO CAPTURE, ESPECIALLY IF YOUR CAUGHT BEHIND ENEMY LINES.  That's the reason why paratroopers were invented.

@ author>> Are you intending a serious discussion on this topic?  If so a little history/context would be appreciated perhaps some links to other related past or current discussion on this area.  following with interest Roy 

If you cannot cope with real chess laws (400 years old) then play the pre-reform laws, ie. pawn only move one square, queens rooks and bishops one or two squares leaving the knight not slower but just different. Archaic chess is fun with one, two or three dice,

no

No.