En passant for other than pawns

Sort:
JNL922

Is capturing 'en passant' can be done by other piece than pawn ? Ex. Can a Bishop capture a pawn 'en passant' or is it only between pawns ?

Greenatic

Only pawns can capture via en passant.  Smile

Do you know the rules for en passant or would you like us to explain that too?

MyNamesNotMike

It is only between pawns. A bishop/knight/queen/(anything but a pawn here) is not able to capture a pawn en passant. Only a pawn can capture another pawn in that way.

Knightly_News
Greenatic wrote:

Only pawns can capture via en passant.  

Not if you have auto-win enabled.

corrijean

The rules for en passant are here:

http://www.chess.com/learn-how-to-play-chess#special

Doc_who_loves_chess
BorgQueen wrote:
reflectivist wrote:

Not if you have auto-win enabled.

Ooohh... where is that button?!

One suspects (but can never be sure) that it may refer to an internal "button", based in r-complex of the brain, the deepest "reptilian" part of our brain and an early evolutionary structure that some believe is the heart of our competitiveness...  Once this button is "switched on" we will gladly work day and night until victory in chess is, essentially, automatic... how to switch it on is another question...

Doc_who_loves_chess

Hopefully experiencing and then seeking to recapitulate chess-induced euphoria gets close...

corrijean

I just listened to a blog that discussed reptilian brain structures this morning.

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/f/a/2/fa2f929f6f7192c0/skepticast2007-11-28.mp3?c_id=1927553&expiration=1371706617&hwt=a2df1bb40fd669dc90f7eabbfa5e6638

Spelbnder

You have to teach your hypothalymus chess though.

Kel-G-426

It would seem reasonable to me to allow other pieces to capture en passant, especially since the rule was made specifically to prevent the pawn from avoiding a possible capture when moving two squares. I have to admit that would really complicate things though.

DragonPhoenixSlayer
kelgaard wrote:

It would seem reasonable to me to allow other pieces to capture en passant, especially since the rule was made specifically to prevent the pawn from avoiding a possible capture when moving two squares. I have to admit that would really complicate things though.

Why do people keep reviving dead posts

2dud2

Can you make me your friend

2dud2

😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇👺👺👺👺👺👺👺😝😝😝😝😝😛😝😘😘😘😘😘😘😉😉😉😉😉🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

ChessMaster4752
2dud2 wrote:

😃😃😃😃😃😃😃😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😍😎😎😎😎😎😎😎😎🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓🤓😇😇😇😇😇😇😇😇👺👺👺👺👺👺👺😝😝😝😝😝😛😝😘😘😘😘😘😘😉😉😉😉😉🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑🤑😡😡😡😡😡😡😡

Mobile User Alert!

Kel-G-426

I revived it because I felt like commenting on it.  Anyone who doesn't like it is welcome to ignore it. 

Drawgood

Enabling en passant for other pieces seems like a good idea at first. "Well, if a piece moves through a field hit by another piece why shouldn't there be en passant?" But no. In case of pawns they have only one direction of moving and hitting. Other pieces cannot "skip" a position in which they'd otherwise be under threat of being taken because they can move freely in the first place. This has to do with why a pawn can jump two squares originally and that's the only reason for en passant.

Zeke111113

I was playing with myself an did a actual en passant with a queen no joke.

AtaChess68
I have never done it but it often is a quick thought: ‘should I take en passant? Oh, no, it’s my knight’