3 ms·
Sure, but we don't have the same rule for a rook or bishop "passing" through a square where a pawn could strike it in passing. It's just it's own unique rule,
by SamBam 2y ago
Sure, but we don't have the same rule for a rook or bishop "passing" through a square where a pawn could strike it in passing.
It's just it's own unique rule, born from a period of transition between pawns only being able to take one step and being able to take two.
- Dylan16807 2y agoThough castling does take all kinds of strikes in passing into account for the king.
- SamBam 2y agoTrue. It's as if any piece could kill the king in transition. And yet other pieces can't kill that pawn in passing. Only another pawn. We shouldn't try to find too much logic.
- kevindamm 2y agoClearly there's some Heisenberg uncertainty principle where the pawn occupies both the third (or sixth) and fourth (or fifth) rank, in a kind of superposition that only an opponent pawn situated in a certain position would be able to observe.
- FartyMcFarter 2y agoI think the logic is based on pragmatism. A different piece has a chance of capturing the pawn later, but a pawn would never be able to since it can't go backwards.