play without en passant
Sort:
I find castle and en passant moves sort of a weird rule.
Is there a variant of chess to play without these rules?
They only advantage advanced users (who either simply know this specific rule, or remember about it).
I know that many experienced players are used to them but I feel like the game would be more tactical and less 'remember the rules' without them.
What do you think?
Sep 5, 2022
0
#2
HinNumenor wrote:
I find castle and en passant moves sort of a weird rule. Is there a variant of chess to play without these rules? They only advantage advanced users (who either simply know this specific rule, or remember about it). I know that many experienced players are used to them but I feel like the game would be more tactical and less 'remember the rules' without them. What do you think?
These are fundamental, basic, and important chess rules.
With that being said, "No Castling" is a common variant on the site: https://www.chess.com/variants/no-castling
I don't think there are any variants which specifically disable en passant.
Sep 5, 2022
0
#3
Playing without en passant makes no sense at all. It would make more sense to say that a pawn did not have the option to move two squares on its first turn.
The two squares option rule was added in the 15th century to accelerate the game but it became immediately obvious that en passant was needed to make it work.
Sep 5, 2022
0
#4
There's an option to turn on no en passant on the variants server, though I don't see a way to do a custom rule set with that and no castling.
I think without en passant the pawns would get more locked up causing the draw percentage to go way up.
Santoy a écrit :
Playing without en passant makes no sense at all. It would make more sense to say that a pawn did not have the option to move two squares on its first turn.
The two squares option rule was added in the 15th century to accelerate the game but it became immediately obvious that en passant was needed to make it work.
Yes I totally agree, but I don't see why this is not the case. Why did people think it was easier to allow for an extra move, instead of forbidding one?
If you would not allow a player to move 2 squares at his turn (at least in the case there's a pawn waiting to take you en passant), and no castling, chess would finally be again a game where you can decide what to play just by looking at the board, without knowledge of the history of the game. This is the case for most board games, go, checkers, etc.
Chess is the weird cousin that evolved to have six fingers.
HinNumenor wrote:
Santoy a écrit :
Playing without en passant makes no sense at all. It would make more sense to say that a pawn did not have the option to move two squares on its first turn.
The two squares option rule was added in the 15th century to accelerate the game but it became immediately obvious that en passant was needed to make it work.
Yes I totally agree, but I don't see why this is not the case. Why did people think it was easier to allow for an extra move, instead of forbidding one?
If you would not allow a player to move 2 squares at his turn (at least in the case there's a pawn waiting to take you en passant), and no castling, chess would finally be again a game where you can decide what to play just by looking at the board, without knowledge of the history of the game. This is the case for most board games, go, checkers, etc.
Chess is the weird cousin that evolved to have six fingers.
It'd be boring as heck, and just much slower. Go play another game if you don't like the rules of chess, but don't complain.
Sep 7, 2022
0
#8
Yeah the no-castling variant is ok as a bit of a gimmick but it’s a much slower and more tedious version. En-passant is something to keep an eye out for but it doesn’t occur all that often. If you’re struggling with chess generally there are probably better places to start than blaming the rules (no offence intended at all). In any case, it is what it is - those rules aren’t going away.