Have you ever used "en passant" in a real game?

   First of all, the comment above saying "Capturing En Passant is as common as castling" is strange and absolutely incorrect.  In games between very strong players perhaps both chess players will castle in the same game in 75%-85% of instances and at least one of the players will castle in 95-96% of games.  There are a few masters who specialize in openings featuring very early trades of queens and these type of games do not see castling at anywhere near that frequency, but such openings are ultra-rare.  En passant pawn capture is much, much rarer than castling.

   Nevertheless, what a strange question.  Only very inexperienced players can answer this question "NO."  This website actually also had a recent post asking for a survey about underpromotion that was absolutely amateurish.  Experienced and strong players have all underpromoted to a rook and  more commonly to a knight at some time or other although almost no one will ever need to under-promote to a bishop.  But the general subject of special moves" in chess is a very interesting one in any case. Of all the special moves in chess, triple-check** is the rarest.  More on that later . . . .

    Promoting a pawn is very common, probably almost as common as castling (because in some games three or even four pawn promotions may occur often with the promoted piece being captured immediately (or right after a necessary check). Queenside castling is much rarer than kingside, say 1/3 as often perhaps less.  Of course only a maximum of two castlings may occur in any given game but several pawn promotions each is theoretically possible in each and every game. That situation (because of earlier checkmates and resignations:  since 95% of pawn promotions occur after 25 moves and probably 80% after move 40) is practically encountered in real games only very rarely. 

   En passant as a relevant part of calculation occurs in about 60% of games, but actual en passant capture opportunities are much rarer (say 15% of games) and usually the strongest move is to make the e.p. capture (roughly at least 85% of the time), because e.p. capture will not still be available in the same manner after a check or capture.

   Pawns are, naturally enough, usually promoted to queens.  Underpromotion to rook occurs to avoid a stalemate that normal "queening" might bring about.  Underpromotion to knight occurs when a serious and important knight fork can be created.  Underpromotion to bishop occurs almost totally in endgame studies and chess puzzles where queen or rook promotion would result in stalemate; knight promotion won't work and a bishop + knight + king vs. king endgame is the only way to win.  Actual Bishop underpromotions are rarer then hens' teeth, I have personally never seen one except in studies and puzzles and I've been playing chess for far longer than almost anyone alive.  I know of NO Bishop underpromotions in any important game.

**  triple-check       :    )

      Even rarer than triple-check actually is pushing a pawn to the eighth rank and punching one's clock (without promoting to Q; R; N; or B first) as a ploy to confound your opponent and cause him to lose on time;  that is actually an illegal move.  Now about "triple-check"

. . .

   I was just trying to see if you were on your toes!   I was pulling your leg -- real triple checks CANNOT exist.  However, I have seen some occur during intense time pressure due to errors unseen by both players; and in George Koltanowski's great book Checkmate he described executing a triple-check and triple-checkmate on three separate kings that saved his life  from a warlord who'd insisted that Koltanowsky teach him to play chess. . . it's a great book explaining all common checkmate patterns and checkmate pattern sacrifices designed to develop your tactical and strategic eye and Koltanowsky's exciting and interesting tall-tale is worth buying the book all by itself.

     Just to give you something you're guaranteed to enjoy, after my corny little triple-check trick on you, here's a Forsythe notation (remember in Forsythe, capital letters denote White; small letters denote Black; numbers denote empty squares; you start out setting up the board with the Black QR-a8 corner and move R to L along each rank) position  that people I've shown it to completely fall in love with:  I'll also give you a hint well down the page . . . in case you need one   :   ).

8 P B p 7 P 26 p 9 p 5 K 1 k

White to move and mate in three:

Hint:

Naturally, you're examining all (nine) of White's legal moves?

8 P B p 7 P 26 p 9 p 5 K 1 k

PS:  I'm serious, many people claim to only "see" six possible White moves as a common chess word locks their mind up and prevents their solving this puzzle.  Good luck.

8 P B p 7 P 26 p 9 p 5 K 1 k

 OK sorry, my comment about capturing en passant being as common as castling was a bit over the top, but I do it A LOT, it comes up quite often, and I'm stunned that people think it's a rare occurence.

A friend of mine knew about en passant but insisted that it was mandatory, like a capture in checkers. Try finding a source, before the internet, mind, that would establish that it was optional.

I stopped playing him, for that and other reasons.

Here is the thing about en passant. It is quite rare to actually occur in games, but the idea often prevents a move or variation.

 OK i'm stunned...it's COMMON in games, not "quite rare."

Unless you are playing n00Bs, it happens all the time.

En Passant happens more often in calculation than actually being played on the board.

Yes I saw someone capture En Passant once, then frogs rained from the sky and the rivers turned to blood.

 That's kind of an interesting idea.  Did you play with these rules or refuse to play the game improperly?

Oh, and what's this en passant thing everybody's goin' on about?

I've used it in both real and fake games.

It's not rare at all. The move is actually executed in about 3% of my games, and a threat a bit more than that.

Yes, I've done it and opponents have done it.  More significant, perhaps, is that knowing the rule I may have not (or my opponent may have not) moved the pawn up two squares to allow en passant to come into play.  I think that may be even more common than the actual occurance of en passant.

 I guess I don't want to get good at chess, if it takes away your ability to tell when somebody is joking.

I havent even used this once ! In my Live games, I do not consider en passant as an option. It is not in my mind.

good plan...

I may be going out on a limb here, but I rather suspect that players who employ the en passant move with some regularity enjoy vastly higher ratings than those who forget the rule.

 Yes.
It's not as common as castling or pawn promotion, but it isn't an uncommon occurance. If you've played chess very long, surely you have had an opportunity to accept or decline an 'en passant' move on occasion.

 Probably true since I forget it all the time.

Way back when I could've used it to win a piece in a USCF tournament game...and I forgot about it. 

Of course, I have played en passant. It is very common in Benoni type positions. When white has a pawn on a5 and black pushes b5. axb6 would be the best response otherwise black gains too much counterplay on queenside. If I had pawns on g3 and h2 and my opponent has a pawn on g4. I would not play the suicidal move h4 because he would just play gxh3 e.p. That is what I meant by en passant happens more often in calculation.