x
Chess - Play & Learn

Chess.com

FREE - In Google Play

FREE - in Win Phone Store

VIEW

Why does "En Passant" rule NOT include BISHOPS?

  • #1

    null

  • #2

    Why would you want to give up the bishop for a pawn?

  • #3

    Why should it? Rules are fine and dont need to be fixed

  • #4
    Bogart04 wrote:

    Why should it?

    Because they're just pawns with fancy hats.

    I guess they can't because the hat weighs them down.

    Maybe if I file down my bishops I can ask the tourney director if they can en passant capture.

  • #5
    The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
    Bogart04 wrote:

    Why should it?

    Because they're just pawns with fancy hats.

    I guess they can't because the hat weighs them down.

    Maybe if I file down my bishops I can ask the tourney director if they can en passant capture.

    That begs the question:  if your bishop is a "tall pawn", can it act like one? wink.png

  • #6

    Maybe, but why does "castling" rule NOT include KNIGHTS?

  • #7
    Bogart04 wrote:

    Maybe, but why does "castling" rule NOT include KNIGHTS?

    Do you mean knight and king, knight and rook, or all 3 together?

    Probably because knights are too clumsy, they can't even walk in a straight line.

  • #8

    Sorry for sarcasm but this is stupid question OP. /thread

  • #9
    Bogart04 wrote:

    Sorry for sarcasm but this is stupid question OP. /thread

    Look at OP's rating. The stupidity is on purpose.

  • #10
    [COMMENT DELETED]
  • #11
    GodsPawn2016 wrote:

    Why would you want to give up the bishop for a pawn?

    That image is for readers who might not find out what the question really is.

    Don't pay attention to the image. Just tell us a reason why Bishops are not allowed to take part in e.p. party ?wink.png

  • #12

    I thought that only very weak players made stupid threads. Now I see that strong players can be  just as dumb. 

  • #13

    The_Chin_Of_Quinn schrieb:

    Bogart04 wrote:

    Maybe, but why does "castling" rule NOT include KNIGHTS?

    Do you mean knight and king, knight and rook, or all 3 together?

    Probably because knights are too clumsy, they can't even walk in a straight line.

    All 3 together would be nice, like on trooping the Colour. The Queen would like it! ;-)

  • #14
    compressicationer wrote:
    GodsPawn2016 wrote:

    Why would you want to give up the bishop for a pawn?

    That image is for readers who might not find out what the question really is.

    Don't pay attention to the image. Just tell us a reason why Bishops are not allowed to take part it e.p. party ?

    Pawn structure is its own element. When pawns could only move 1 square at a time, the game was too slow, but when they could move two at once, it affected the structure possibilities in a way that players decided was negative.

    Rules don't follow logic in the sense that chess isn't a war simulation. The rules exist to create a game rich in strategy and tactics. Same sort of answer for stalemate, pawn promotion, etc.

    But of course you know this, and the topic is just for fun, so I'm sorry to be so serious tongue.png

  • #15

    The pope was against this not to make bishops too mighty. For the same reason the queen is not allowed to castle.

  • #16

    wow saw the blitz rating of OP. good troll job mate.

  • #17
    The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
    compressicationer wrote:
    GodsPawn2016 wrote:

    Why would you want to give up the bishop for a pawn?

    That image is for readers who might not find out what the question really is.

    Don't pay attention to the image. Just tell us a reason why Bishops are not allowed to take part it e.p. party ?

    Pawn structure is its own element. When pawns could only move 1 square at a time, the game was too slow, but when they could move two at once, it affected the structure possibilities in a way that players decided was negative.

    Rules don't follow logic in the sense that chess isn't a war simulation. The rules exist to create a game rich in strategy and tactics. Same sort of answer for stalemate, pawn promotion, etc.

    But of course you know this, and the topic is just for fun, so I'm sorry to be so serious

    About 50 logical answers could be given to the question of this article. (Strange but True )

    Your reasoning is virtually similar to the 3rd best answer among those 50.

    Thank youwink.png

  • #18
    compressicationer wrote:
    The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
    compressicationer wrote:
    GodsPawn2016 wrote:

    Why would you want to give up the bishop for a pawn?

    That image is for readers who might not find out what the question really is.

    Don't pay attention to the image. Just tell us a reason why Bishops are not allowed to take part it e.p. party ?

    Pawn structure is its own element. When pawns could only move 1 square at a time, the game was too slow, but when they could move two at once, it affected the structure possibilities in a way that players decided was negative.

    Rules don't follow logic in the sense that chess isn't a war simulation. The rules exist to create a game rich in strategy and tactics. Same sort of answer for stalemate, pawn promotion, etc.

    But of course you know this, and the topic is just for fun, so I'm sorry to be so serious

    About 50 logical answers could be given to the question of this article. (Strange but True )

    Your reasoning is virtually similar to the 3rd best answer among those 50.

    Thank you

    I guess I didn't specifically answer why bishops can't, I only answered why pawns can.

    I'm interested in seeing some other answers though. Maybe something like bishops are long range, so they would restrict pawns too much. There might be some specific opening lines that would be unplayable with that rule.

  • #19

    compressicationer wrote:

    null

    I called FIDE and they will call you back ASAP. They say thanks they overlooked it.

  • #20
    The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
    compressicationer wrote:
    The_Chin_Of_Quinn wrote:
    compressicationer wrote:
    GodsPawn2016 wrote:

    Why would you want to give up the bishop for a pawn?

    That image is for readers who might not find out what the question really is.

    Don't pay attention to the image. Just tell us a reason why Bishops are not allowed to take part it e.p. party ?

    Pawn structure is its own element. When pawns could only move 1 square at a time, the game was too slow, but when they could move two at once, it affected the structure possibilities in a way that players decided was negative.

    Rules don't follow logic in the sense that chess isn't a war simulation. The rules exist to create a game rich in strategy and tactics. Same sort of answer for stalemate, pawn promotion, etc.

    But of course you know this, and the topic is just for fun, so I'm sorry to be so serious

    About 50 logical answers could be given to the question of this article. (Strange but True )

    Your reasoning is virtually similar to the 3rd best answer among those 50.

    Thank you

    I guess I didn't specifically answer why bishops can't, I only answered why pawns can.

    I'm interested in seeing some other answers though. Maybe something like bishops are long range, so they would restrict pawns too much. There might be some specific opening lines that would be unplayable with that rule.

    Finally the answer is given...

    That's absolutely right, because it's all about the "Range".

     

Top
or Join

Online Now