31 Mar 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitThis rule was added in the 14th or 15th Century when the rule about pawns having the option of initially moving two squares was added. The rationale is so that a pawn can not pass by another pawn using the two-square move without the risk of it being captured.
For 100 bonus points, who can tell me why the en passant rule was created?
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitEasy
For 100 bonus points, who can tell me why the en passant rule was created?
There was a time when players could only move a pawn One Square.
As to quicken the game, they decided you could move 2 squares since most players ended up doing this all the time.
You had to have en passant or the quick 2 move jump would have changed the game.
Forget where I learned that.
P-
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by KingDavid403Poop... you beat me.
This rule was added in the 14th or 15th Century when the rule about pawns having the option of initially moving two squares was added. The rationale is so that a pawn can not pass by another pawn using the two-square move without the risk of it being captured.
P-
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by KingDavid403Even I have learnt something today 😀
I must admit, just about 2 years ago I learned that when castling, That the rook can cross check or a line of fire by a opponents piece as long as the king does not.
I never knew that before. I always thought up to that time that neither piece could cross check or a line of fire by a opponents piece. I wonder how many games I lost due to that lack of knowledge.
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by KingDavid403We have a winner.
This rule was added in the 14th or 15th Century when the rule about pawns having the option of initially moving two squares was added. The rationale is so that a pawn can not pass by another pawn using the two-square move without the risk of it being captured.
Now, for a THOUSAND bonus points, who can find a position where one player WINS by making a two-step move that passes an enemy pawn [which is NOT pinned] - but they would not have won if there was no two-step pawn rule?
In other words, show that the two-move advance changed the game in other ways besides just making it go faster, despite the best intent of the EP rule.
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by SwissGambitSomething to do with a pawn winning the race to the Queening square with the 2-step, but being captured by the enemy King with the 1-step rule because the King was able to get inside the "box"?
show a position that's won now that there is a two-step pawn advance, and drawn without it - WITH ONLY 3 UNITS PRESENT on the board.
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by MontyMooseGood enough - 100 bonus points awarded.
Something to do with a pawn winning the race to the Queening square with the 2-step, but being captured by the enemy King with the 1-step rule because the King was able to get inside the "box"?
Here is a position to illustrate the answer:
White to play WINS with 1.a4 and only draws with 1.a3
- Joined
- 10 Jan 08
- Moves
- 19785
31 Mar 09
Originally posted by Christhank you.
Hi All,
To clarify this situation.
We frequently receive this question via feedback and our policy is simply to tell the person asking the question (whether it be they or their opponent who they believe to be in checkmate) about the en passant rule.
Chris
suck it losers.