Why Only Pawns in En Passant?

The point re the en passant rule reducing pawn chains is a valid one, I think. Another aspect -- a bit more crass perhaps -- is that having every piece subject to an en passant capture instead of just pawns would cut down on the middlegame chess book industry at the expense of the "endgame scribes." LOL ;)

 Seriously, en passant is adequate strategic compensation  for pawns having a double-square advance. It has led to many an argument between those in the know and those who had no clue about the rule prior to falling into it, but that's usually an early chess lesson for one who hopefully will experience many in his/her lifetime.

"Now, why did the rule makers only allow pawns?  Theorectically, if a pawn can capture En Passant, why can't a bishop, knight, queen, rook, king, etc.?" << themirrorwin's question in the first post of the the thread.

I was addressing his theoretical query. Pterodactyl's point re reduction of pawn chains (the strategic point why the rule as is helps reduce draws) and my "crass" point re oversimplification of the game by an extended application of the en passant rule flows from that. By removing key pieces through an expansion of the rule (I mean the use of pieces to remove pawns in this way would lead to more piece exchanges), we would see truncated middlegames and something strategically closer to checkers than chess via "capturitis!" :P LOL

As I understand it, en passant was created to balance out the two space pawn move.  But to allow any piece to capture en passant would be a bit of an overcompensation.  It's nice that they named it "en passant" and came up with a nifty little war metaphor to explain it, but chess is a game, not a real life war battle, and to make it so that all pieces could capture en passant for the sake of realism in real battles would undo the game balance that the rule was designed to create.

And I haven't set this up on a board yet, but in my mind's eye I see that the placement of just a very few minor pieces could cause almost all of the opponents pawns to become immediately subject to en passant capture if they choose to move two spaces.  So what would happen is that everyone would go back to moving one space (for the most part) which is just a regression back to where you didn't have the option to move two spaces and defeats the whole purpose.

It'd be interesting to play some games with this variation and see how far reaching the impact would be. 

  That is a good point.

Yes, a really good thought at last!! On the other hand, it is not so easy to capture the pawn as it often has another pawn protecting "en passant" square... So I'm still not sure.

 Funny, he has a point, I don't see the point of asking about this anyway, it would be ridiculous for any other peice to en passant, there would be so many games drawn by lack of material.

You clearly didn't read the forum.  It became made clear that I mean, why when a pawn moves 2 spaces can ONLY a pawn capture it immediately after.  Not if ever piece can capture En Passent all the time - that would be just plain silly.  Only in the En passent rules.

I also was wondering about it. However, reading the GreenLaser's example, I noticed that it would allows triple-check, and that would be amazing. Imagine Black Kh7, f7, and White Nh5, Rh4, Be4+. If Black plays f5 blocking the bishop check, Nxf6+ en passant deliverers triple check!

Framed like that with the rook example yes.

But what if black had a bishop on B4 instead. Shouldn't it be able to capture the C pawn jumping past the C3 capture square?

(This was exactly the position I was thinking of earlier which lead me to this thread)

Okay, I read through this whole thing hoping, but nothing felt like a good answer. Here's my take: Based on the board layout, every pawn *must* address its opposite pawns on adjacent columns. It is forgone, unless they're off the board. All other pieces do not have this same forgone confrontation in their development. The 2-square 1st move was added to speed play, more than anything, getting things moving in the center much faster. E P was incorporated to compensate for this forgone confrontation. Without it, a pawn could merely wait for its adjacent opposite(s) to advance to the appropriate rank, & ZIP! they're by & you've a passed pawn. That's why passed pawns area such a big deal - they're no longer faced w confronting opposite pawns, & the player must devote a piece to their capture. E P still lets those adjacent pawns on R4/5 to exert their influence, & the one-time only works, too. E P exists because only pawns have a forced confrontation in their development.

The other pieces can capture the pawn on the square it lands on or later on in the game. The only one that misses that opportunity is the pawn that it is passing by. I think that is why only pawns capture en passant.

I think bishops should be able to capture en passant.

I don't understand the logic of why they can't. The pawn capture is allowed to stop a player using the two square move to avoid being captured. Yet they can do it, to avoid capture by bishops.

Seems to happen against me quite a lot in end games and I always think it provides an unfair advantage.

I think it should be allow with bishop and rook only. The reason e. Passant was created was due to in old chess a pawn only could move one space up and people wanted to make the game go faster. So they allowed pawns to moves twice well this allow someone to avoid there pawn getting attacked. So they created me passant well I think a bishop and a queen should be able to en passant simply due to it following the reason why en passant was created.