THE ENPASSANT RULE IS SO DUMB

Sort:
Avatar of JamieDelarosa

It seems to me that those who complain about the en passant rule have lesser intellects.  They can't mentally cope with it.

Avatar of Lagomorph

Just block and move on. Dont feed the trolls

Avatar of KamikazeCheese08
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

Avatar of CheckMateMaster146
I really understand en passant but I don’t use it a lot.
Avatar of Zinc_Man

I'm going to start castling with my Queen, like Alekhine. 

Avatar of Checknologist
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

 

Avatar of vihaanchess009

Complete fair rule 

Avatar of vihaanchess009
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.

Avatar of vihaanchess009
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

Avatar of Azathot0

if it ain't broke, don't fix it

Avatar of Springwdslsh
NikkiLikeChikki escreveu:
All caps. Uses the word “bruh”. I’m guessing 12 years old?
It’s a rule. Get used to it, sis.

"hur dur it's a rule" what a useless sheep

Avatar of Springwdslsh
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.

Avatar of AhmedAryan
EpicCheck wrote:
Steven-ODonoghue wrote:
snoozyman wrote:
GM_chess_player wrote:
Aida_Amin wrote:
snoozyman wrote:

Enpassant makes sense.

Enpassant makes sense.

Avatar of AhmedAryan

ahem

Avatar of blueemu
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.

Avatar of AhmedAryan

pawns should be able to promote on their back rank, to anti-air abrams tanks

Avatar of AhmedAryan

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

Avatar of AhmedAryan

i like the rock dont tell anybodyfasfawffdzfas

Avatar of AhmedAryan

im seeing this on multiple threads wth you smokin

Avatar of abc1234_123

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.