THE ENPASSANT RULE IS SO DUMB

Since this got bumped anyway even though op's long gone, let's not miss this opportunity to say:

No zit zl0ck.

I totally agree and don't give a .. what other people think. if its about the draws then they should've found a better rule than that.
The rule was invented 1000 years after the game was invented. The french should've left it as is.
Chess.com should have a section for people who want to play without the enpassant . Otherwise great job to Chess.com btw

it makes sense

i always lose because of enpassant

No, it's not about draws. It is to make it so that no pawn can ever bypass another pawn without an offer of trading. Like 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 (Black technically is offering White and trade) 3.e5 (white rejects and bypasses).

Well, if let's say 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.c4 Nb6 4.d4, since no trade has been offered yet of the White e-pawn and Black d-pawn, one cannot bypass the other without either some form of trade offer, or a deflection of one of the pawns, like if Black plays f6 and White plays exf6, then there is no e-pawn to take a d-pawn.

But if 4...d5, White must be given one opportunity to trade e-pawn for d-pawn with 5.exd6.

And typically, the only time people whine about a rule is when they have a position that would have won if not for that rule, but then there were many games I would have won if Rooks move diagonally or queens could jump. If its and buts were candy and nuts ...

Grow up and learn that rules are rules. If that's too hard for you, maybe tic tac toe is your game.

Haha man, you grow up brah .
Rules are rules haha, that's the stupidest thing ever. Rules are meant to be broken dude. Quote of one of your fellow Americans. Btw if rules are rules then enpassant should never have existed in the first place.
Tic tac toe . Man you hurt me so much now.
Btw i only read the last line because i didn't care about the rest.

It's almost 150 years old nonsense.

En passant is something of an oddity. It’s been around since the 16th century but wasn’t adopted generally until the 19th century presumably because it wasn’t that popular. So, thinking en passant is ‘dumb’ is perfectly reasonable I think. You don’t need to be a grand master to grasp the concept so those who challenge your opinion simply because you aren’t shouldn’t.

Enpassant is like game of cricket where the ball ( pawn ) touches the bat ( king ) is given out

Pawns going from side don't like each other as they have to see left or right which distracts them to see straight

I don't think you know what en passant means.

Hint: it has nothing to do with either king.

You don't need to explain what enpassant means everyone knows about it I gave an example if you understand cricket enpassant has caused king losing so that way I have mentioned

It makes complete sense...

Evil frenchies are evil.

En Passant is actually good as without it, interesting pawn endgames would be reduced alot. Pawns on their home squares wouldn't have to worry about an enemy neighboring pawn, but since it can be captured you have to worry about where your kings are.

draw or not game is game. En passant really killing the game sports. I hate chess now

Perfectly logical move. Move 2 squares on first move is like a unit charging in the field. If existing unit is already on the 5th rank it would challenge an advancing pawn unit as it moves through the zone of control on the 6th rank. If anything there should be something for when pieces pass through the squares of control.

I love en passant

i never really understood the need for this rule before and couple times got caught with it from my opponents and then got really mad -- till it was explained to me here a little better in the spirit of the rule and now I see the need of the why of the rule - so I may never implement it I now understand when I lose a pawn because of it the why of it -- thanks all