En Passant Oddity

At a position of en passant in a chess puzzle.

If the opponent does not take on one side of the board( say right side) an en passant move

Why is he allowed to take on the other side .

Im not convinced still that you should be allowed to. Use it or lose it makes more sense

Are these special Australian rules chess puzzles?  You can only use en passant on the very first move after your opponent has moved his pawn 2 squares in regular chess.  I'll go find the help article...

Here you go mate...

https://support.chess.com/article/683-what-is-en-passant

When a white pawn ( for example) moves to the 5th rank . Black has the right to open with the two square move and pass the white pawn enabling en passant. 
He can do this on either side if the pawn is not on the side of the board.

what I am asking is why if white chooses NOT to en passant on one side does he retain the right to do it on the other side if black moves two squares there. Surely, it’s use it or lose it. 

The article shows that if you don’t use the right to do it….. it is gone 

I agree. But that is not the rule I believe

Use it or lose it

Surely, that's insane ...why on earth would it be "use it or lose it?" for a completely different pawn?  I think you do not understand why en passant was added to the game to begin with. 

When the two square move rule was added, it speeded up the game and made openings more fun, but it also created the possibility of creating passed pawns by simply waiting for the opponent's pawn to reach the 5th rank, then jumping past it.  En passant fixes that problem.  If it was "use or lose it" once and once only and not for each pawn that moves two squares, then the rule wouldn't be doing jack.

Oh, now I understand what you are asking.  I think it's as simple as 2 different pawn moves so 2 chances to en passant.  Not taking the first pawn shouldn't mean you can't take the second one.  Maybe someone else can explain it better?

Let me try to answer this with an example. An opening that does not make much sense, but illustrates the point 1. e4 c5 2. e5 d5 3. Nf3 -- White chooses not to take en passant -- 3... f5 4. exf6 is perfectly legal. Even in a puzzle!

Yes. It is a completely different pawn . I agree. But chess moves have transpired in between that fresh pawn opening.

Example: If you look at a board where a king and a rook are in position for castling they can castle.

But what if prior to that the king moved forward one and back one.

Everyone looking at the board would say you can castle if they saw it first time

He point being something transpired inbetween

I think what you are failing to realize is that each 2 pawn move resets the en passant opportunity.

Not the same situation.  Once on the 5th rank, a pawn can take any adjacent file pawn that moves two squares and passes it at any time...and once having captured en passant, that pawn is now on the 6th rank and cannot capture en passant anymore.

I’m not convinced because it’s a fresh pawn on the other side that it should be allowed in this unusual case. It’s the rule of en passant but  it’s not crystal clear to me

You don't have to be convinced, that's the rule.  If you were convinced that knights move 3 squares up and one square over, you still couldn't do it .

Anyway, it doesn’t matter. It is the rule so that’s fine. I just don’t agree with it

There are worse rules in Life.  Like that nasty one about death and taxation...I don't agree with either one, but apparently it doesn't matter. 

Lol 😂 

Oh. btw…..Good to hear from you Zoltan .Hope you are well😇

If the en passant option is not used by allowing a pawn to bypass on the right side, it should not limit the en passant option to take a pawn moving 2 squares on that pawns left side.

As there is no restriction on the pawn which is moving 2 squares to create the situation, the option still remains with the player who has advanced the pawn to the 5th rank…. it’s an entirely different choice.