THE ENPASSANT RULE IS SO DUMB
Sort:
I'm going to start castling with my Queen, like Alekhine.
Dec 29, 2020
0
#84
KamikaseChesse wrote:
loubalch escribió:
It makes perfect sense to me. In chess, opposing pawns (armies) are meant to confront one another, so it seems unfair, and contrary to the spirit of the game, that a pawn could use the option of moving two squares and avoid a confrontation.
best reply
Complete fair rule
BodyOdorROCKS1123 wrote:
What is the enpassant rule?
It is where the pawn moves 2 squares and if the lawn moves right beside you then you can take diagonally or go above only if the lawn moves two squares which is beginning position for pawn.
Aida_Amin wrote:
KamikaseChesse wrote:
loubalch escribió:
It makes perfect sense to me. In chess, opposing pawns (armies) are meant to confront one another, so it seems unfair, and contrary to the spirit of the game, that a pawn could use the option of moving two squares and avoid a confrontation.
best reply
Agreed
if it ain't broke, don't fix it
NikkiLikeChikki escreveu:
All caps. Uses the word “bruh”. I’m guessing 12 years old?
It’s a rule. Get used to it, sis.
It’s a rule. Get used to it, sis.
"hur dur it's a rule" what a useless sheep
francis20110 escreveu:
If you allow pawns to move two squares then en passant is necessary. If you are arguing that pawns should only be allowed to move one square I will take you more seriously.
Weak argument, you can move most pawns 2 squares before an opportunity for en passant. It's a dumb rule that, also the queen is OP should move less squares and the rook should be a chariot, that would fix chess overall and make it the slower game that it should be. The queen being OP pretty much ruins the concept of being a low paced strategy game.
EpicCheck wrote:
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
snoozyman wrote:
GM_chess_player wrote:
Aida_Amin wrote:
snoozyman wrote:
Enpassant makes sense.
Enpassant makes sense.
ahem
Jul 17, 2023
0
#93
Springwdslsh wrote:
Weak argument, you can move most pawns 2 squares before an opportunity for en passant.
Straw man.
That doesn't enable a Pawn to slip PAST an enemy Pawn without being exposed to capture.
Your removal of the en passant rule WOULD.
pawns should be able to promote on their back rank, to anti-air abrams tanks
uhh i just wanna say a few big words about en passant being dumb
1 . no you
2 . pawns should move 3 squares
3 . why is this thread a thing
i like the rock dont tell anybodyfasfawffdzfas
percyjacksonperfect wrote:
im seeing this on multiple threads wth you smokin
enpassant rule is the worst thing. It is a complete non sense rule. 1000 points should be deducted for using it. Why not make queen have knight power and pawn go backwards. Why only pawns can become queen anyone going to other side should also become queen.
Endgames would be less complex without enpassant. Pawns would never be locked as an unblocked pawn could simply pass the neighboring ones without being captured.
It makes perfect sense to me. In chess, opposing pawns (armies) are meant to confront one another, so it seems unfair, and contrary to the spirit of the game, that a pawn could use the option of moving two squares and avoid a confrontation.
best reply