3 ms·
I think the en-passant rule is a bit more clever than you're giving it credit for. At the root of en-passant is that a pawn moving into the space the opposing p
by pc86 4y ago
I think the en-passant rule is a bit more clever than you're giving it credit for. At the root of en-passant is that a pawn moving into the space the opposing pawn "skipped" allows you to take it, but only if done immediately.
So we're playing this version, down to just two kings, I roll a 4 and move from E6 to E2. If you're at G3, and you roll at least a two, you can move over to E3 and capture me en-passant. Or at least that's my understanding of the rule. You moved into a square my king was occupying in the turn[s] immediately following mine.
- bena 4y agoThat just seems... bad. Also easy to circumvent by moving along diagonals. You can even zig-zag your move so you can wind up where you want. I could go E6-D5-C4-D3-E2, then you couldn't en passant to E3. Not that you could do it on E3 as that would put you in check and isn't allowed. But G4 to E4 is a legal move with the same outcome in your scenario. I really can't see a way that you'd be able to en passant a king that's not easily routed around or just illegal. It also violates the concept that you're taking multiple turns. You can capture a pawn en passant because the pawn's double move is a relatively recent rule. It's solely to make sure you can't avoid capture by using the double move. But it's still a single turn. The die roll lets you move that many pieces. As N distinct turns. If the turns would have played out one-by-one, it wouldn't be allowed as a player can't put their own king in check, and even if they were allowed, the opposing player could just take the king in response. And it's no longer "in passing" if it's from several columns away.