https://www.chess.com/article/view/his-pawn-cheated-and-killed-my-pawn
En Passant
Sort:
That's right, it seems unfair. England won an important cricket match. I'm less drunk now.
Wasn't it. Just almost incredible. It was my daughter-in-law's first taste of cricket, too. She's Finnish. They have moose-hurling and so on. 
I am playing that game yet.
You can see. In my playing daily games.
Optimissed wrote:
Let's face it, it's illogical. If I have a pawn on the sixth and I do a double move to land it on the eighth, which is my opponent's back rank, to turn it into a queen and maybe checkmate his king, and if my opponent had a pawn there then he'd be able to take it when it was going past it even though it would be taking nothing. Like taking thin air, and he's got my queen, which isn't fair.
That's very simple. Think you are white. You have a pawn on d5. Black has a pawn on e7. Black pushes the E pawn to e5. Now white can capture the Black pawn in e5.
In the old days of chess, pawns could only move one square on the first move. In order to speed the game up, the ability for the pawn to move two squares on the first move was added. The en passant rule was added at the same time so a player couldn't use the new 2-square first move to avoid capture.
I played chess a lot in India in 1976 when I was there for 5 months, As you say, there was no double move and therefore no en passant possibility. There was also no castling but the king was allowed one knight's move. I became quite good at Indian rules chess, so if I won at International Rules they might challenge me to switch to Indian rules and I'd usually win again.
IronIC_U wrote:
En Passant is, without a doubt, the least understood rule in chess.
The other one which comes to mind is a pinned piece allowed to support a checking piece, but this rule happens very rarely.
I doubt that's a specific rule though .... only the logical result of the functions of the pieces. I suppose you mean an absolute pin, which is against a king. I'd have thought it's quite common? It would equally apply to not being allowed to move into check where the checking piece is pinned against the opponent's king. It still functions as a piece with all its capabilities except that of any movement out of the pin.
Do you like that I've made a special effort for you, to write on the white bit?
Optimissed wrote:
I played chess a lot in India in 1976 when I was there for 5 months, As you say, there was no double move and therefore no en passant possibility. There was also no castling but the king was allowed one knight's move. I became quite good at Indian rules chess, so if I won at International Rules they might challenge me to switch to Indian rules and I'd usually win again.
You are making all that up.
Have you no idea about Indian rules chess? I should look it up, if I were you.
Yeah, But you must know about enpassant .
It's harsh when that happens. Kind of sad.