10 Mar 06
Originally posted by ChessJesterIt is a fundamental part of the game. Pawn formation is a fundamental part of the game. If you could pass opponents pawns because of the two squares on the first move rule, the game would be drastically changed.
I really don't think its a fundamental part of the game... why is it? does it create a disadvantage without it?
10 Mar 06
1 edit
Originally posted by ChessJesterThe rules of chess have changed over the centuries - you used to have to castle by hand, the queen had the same moves as the king, the bishops could only move 2 squares and the pawns could only move 1 square. As chess players got less patient towards the end of the 14th century they changed the rules so that you could move a pawn 2 squares forward on it's first move. This means that there are a class of positions where a player can escape difficulties by shifting the pawn two forward instead of one, to counter this they introduced the en-passant rule where you can take the pawn on the square it really ought to be on if they hadn't changed the rules, provided it's with another pawn.
I really don't think its a fundamental part of the game... why is it? does it create a disadvantage without it?
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by DeepThoughtSo then why are you only able to take it with another pawn? what if you have a night there gaurding that square and the pawn moves two squares to avoid it? Isn't that the same advantage?
The rules of chess have changed over the centuries - you used to have to castle by hand, the queen had the same moves as the king, the bishops could only move 2 squares and the pawns could only move 1 square. As chess players got less patient towards the end of the 14th century they changed the rules so that you could move a pawn 2 squares forward on it ...[text shortened]... e it really ought to be on if they hadn't changed the rules, provided it's with another pawn.
I'm not trying to argue here... it just helps me understand it.... but really, I think that it isn't a disadvantage at all because both players are aware of the rules when they start playing the game and they both have that option...
10 Mar 06
Originally posted by ChessJesterWell you can't move pawns backwards - if you put a knight in the wrong place you'll lose a tempo or two but can attempt to correct, with pawns if you move it it's moved and there's nothing you can do about it - so it's with that 'piece' that you need a get out clause to compensate for the rule about pawns being able to go forward two on their first move.
So then why are you only able to take it with another pawn? what if you have a night there gaurding that square and the pawn moves two squares to avoid it? Isn't that the same advantage?
I'm not trying to argue here... it just helps me understand it.... but really, I think that it isn't a disadvantage at all because both players are aware of the rules when they start playing the game and they both have that option...
In a sense it makes no difference; you could play chess with a rule where you can't take en-passant it would work just as well, but a number of important positions would work out to the defenders advantage rather than the attackers.