THE ENPASSANT RULE IS SO DUMB

The enpassant rule is fair.

Don’t assume people are 12 because they’re immature. Not all 12 year olds are like that. Perhaps we still slightly lack in maturity, but I think we’re fine.

The pawn on its 5th rank should have the opportunity to restrain opposing pawns on adjacent files with its diagonal capture power.  Without en passant, when a pawn is on its 5th rank and an opposing pawn on an adjacent file elects to move 2 squares for its first move, then that pawn would blow past the pawn on its 5th rank as though the pawn on the 5th rank were not there. The en passant rule was instituted to solve this problem which came up when the rule allowing pawns the option to move 2 squares on their first move was instituted.

Of course not. My guess is more like 8.

bruh im only 200 in blitz, im around 800 in in 10 minutes, ive been playing the game for three years, i stand by my word that it makes no sence and it makes me want to pluck my eyeballs out

and people who are fricken 30 say bruh, so i dont want to hear it

You have been playing for 3 years. The en passant rule was universally accepted in 1880.

What was your point again?

point is i didnt just start playing the game

Ok, but playing for 3 years doesn't give you the authority to challenge a rule 47 times older than that.

I've been playing for 4 years and you don't see me challenging threefold repetition.

In the original rules of the game, pawns just moved one square at a time.  The two-square initial move was an innovation to speed up the game, but it took away a capture opportunity.  Hence, en passant.

i just think that the move does not help the fact that the game is supposed to be stragetic

Exactly. Thats what happens when a guy who never plays cricket says that no-ball is not a fair rule.

First learn chess, reach 1000 and then try to challenge the rules. I won't even waste my time explaining you why its a good rule.

xD