Why the en passant rule?
Sort:
I don't see a reason for their to be such a thing as the en passant rule. Can anyone tell me why this rule exists at all.
Once upon a time pawns were able to move only one square forward, even in first move. When the rule which allows them to move two squares on first move was established, it became a possibility they could escape from the influence of enemy pawns on 5th rank (even you could get a passed pawn after its first move in some cases), therefore en passant came as a way to balance things.
Jun 30, 2016
0
#3
Look up the history of pawn movement. Here is a brief explanation, which is basic and probably not 100% correct 
It used to be that pawns could only move one square at a time, even on the initial move. At some point, it was generally decided that games took too long to play and get the action going so some ideas to speed it up a little were introduced, one of them included the option to move pawns two squares on their first move.
To maintain a lot of existing opening theory and practice, it was decided to allow the capture of the pawn as if it had only move one square, essentially allowing the capture, in passing, but only on that next move.
kaynight wrote:
Just to annoy you.
As for as Wikipedia goes, the en passant rule was created sometime in the 1200s to 1600s. The longest human alive is Emma Morano, and she's 116 years old. I assure you I am not her, by the way. Even if I was generous and said that the en passant rule was made in the 1600s, then there is still an age difference of 300 years. I'm surprised that number is exactly 300, but it is surprisingly. I'm assuming I'm the oldest person on earth, but I'm obviously not.
Because it was impossible for me to be alive on earth in order for the creators of the en passant rule to "annoy me" then I believe your claim is not only not justified but also borders on the insane since I cannot believe you would say something so retarded like that. I also believe that all humans have this thing called intuition, which is the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. How could you not use your intuition to immediately decipher that I am much to young for them to make the rule to annoy me.
Also, What would they have against me? I assure you If I was born in that dangerous time, before civilized humanity was intact, then I would stay quiet to avoid the heinous punishments they had available for any law breakers at the time. I would have most likely been a noble merchant who didn't make any waves and obeyed his king. You, on the other hand, would have been put to jail and been sentenced to a punishment I will not say for the sake keeping this discussion family friendly.
I want to ask you kaynight, what do you think we can learn from this lecture by me? I think that you should be, from here on out, a man who does not talk for the purpose of wanting to be hated, but a man who answers questions with a purpose, and that purpose is to help, and share your knowledge. I think that you should also use your intuition more often, for it is usually a helpful tool. It can sometimes be unreliable, but most of the time it can be trusted, and if not, then usually a little deep thought won't hurt.
Goodbye.
Thank you everyone else who answered my question, your responses were very helpful. Kaynight, of course, did nothing.
According to wikipedia:
Historical context[edit]
Allowing the en passant capture, together with the introduction of the two-square first move for pawns, was one of the last major rule changes in European chess, and occurred between 1200 and 1600. Other relatively recent rule changes were castling, the unlimited range for queens and bishops[12]:14,16,57 (Spanish masterRuy López de Segura gives the rule in his 1561 book Libro de la invencion liberal y arte del juego del axedrez.,[13]:108) and a change to the rules on pawn promotion. In most places the en passant rule was adopted at the same time as allowing the pawn to move two squares on its first move, but it was not universally accepted until the Italian rules were changed in 1880.[4]:124–125
The motivation for en passant was to prevent the newly added two-square first move for pawns from allowing a pawn to evade capture by an enemy pawn.[12]:16 Asianchess variants, because of their separation from European chess prior to that period, do not feature any of these moves.
kaynight wrote:
OP took it personally when I suggested it annoyed you. You was meant in the greater context of everybody. Perhaps a less sheltered life is to be recommended sirrah....and do not post again on my homepage.
You posted on my homepage, therefore when I see fit I will post again on yours. And do not try to correct yourself in your first post, kaynight. You know very well what you were trying to do in your first post, and you were trying to annoy me. You did not, at the time, mean "you" in the greater context of everybody, but you meant just me. If you did mean it, then you would have been specific, that is obvious. I assure you that I do not live a sheltered life. I have roots in Compton, and you don't know the first thing behind your computer screen. Do not call me a sirrah, for I assure you I am much more eloquent and better than you in almost all ways you can imagine. The things you do reign superior at would be being an incredibly obnoxious fool. I am not sure why you hold a grudge toward apparently most people on chess.com, but please do try to stop doing that.
Goodbye, and next time use that small brain of yours to think.
ThePicklePacker wrote:
kaynight wrote:
Just to annoy you.
As for as Wikipedia goes, the en passant rule was created sometime in the 1200s to 1600s. The longest human alive is Emma Morano, and she's 116 years old. I assure you I am not her, by the way. Even if I was generous and said that the en passant rule was made in the 1600s, then there is still an age difference of 300 years. I'm surprised that number is exactly 300, but it is surprisingly. I'm assuming I'm the oldest person on earth, but I'm obviously not.
Because it was impossible for me to be alive on earth in order for the creators of the en passant rule to "annoy me" then I believe your claim is not only not justified but also borders on the insane since I cannot believe you would say something so retarded like that. I also believe that all humans have this thing called intuition, which is the ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning. How could you not use your intuition to immediately decipher that I am much to young for them to make the rule to annoy me.
Also, What would they have against me? I assure you If I was born in that dangerous time, before civilized humanity was intact, then I would stay quiet to avoid the heinous punishments they had available for any law breakers at the time. I would have most likely been a noble merchant who didn't make any waves and obeyed his king. You, on the other hand, would have been put to jail and been sentenced to a punishment I will not say for the sake keeping this discussion family friendly.
I want to ask you kaynight, what do you think we can learn from this lecture by me? I think that you should be, from here on out, a man who does not talk for the purpose of wanting to be hated, but a man who answers questions with a purpose, and that purpose is to help, and share your knowledge. I think that you should also use your intuition more often, for it is usually a helpful tool. It can sometimes be unreliable, but most of the time it can be trusted, and if not, then usually a little deep thought won't hurt.
Goodbye.
That was HILARIOUS!
ThePicklePacker wrote:
kaynight wrote:
OP took it personally when I suggested it annoyed you. You was meant in the greater context of everybody. Perhaps a less sheltered life is to be recommended sirrah....and do not post again on my homepage.
You posted on my homepage, therefore when I see fit I will post again on yours. And do not try to correct yourself in your first post, kaynight. You know very well what you were trying to do in your first post, and you were trying to annoy me. You did not, at the time, mean "you" in the greater context of everybody, but you meant just me. If you did mean it, then you would have been specific, that is obvious. I assure you that I do not live a sheltered life. I have roots in Compton, and you don't know the first thing behind your computer screen. Do not call me a sirrah, for I assure you I am much more eloquent and better than you in almost all ways you can imagine. The things you do reign superior at would be being an incredibly obnoxious fool. I am not sure why you hold a grudge toward apparently most people on chess.com, but please do try to stop doing that.
Goodbye, and next time use that small brain of yours to think.
Ooh, this is getting serious!
ThePicklePacker wrote:
that comeback, though!
kaynight wrote:
OP took it personally when I suggested it annoyed you. You was meant in the greater context of everybody. Perhaps a less sheltered life is to be recommended sirrah....and do not post again on my homepage.
You posted on my homepage, therefore when I see fit I will post again on yours. And do not try to correct yourself in your first post, kaynight. You know very well what you were trying to do in your first post, and you were trying to annoy me. You did not, at the time, mean "you" in the greater context of everybody, but you meant just me. If you did mean it, then you would have been specific, that is obvious. I assure you that I do not live a sheltered life. I have roots in Compton, and you don't know the first thing behind your computer screen. Do not call me a sirrah, for I assure you I am much more eloquent and better than you in almost all ways you can imagine. The things you do reign superior at would be being an incredibly obnoxious fool. I am not sure why you hold a grudge toward apparently most people on chess.com, but please do try to stop doing that.
Goodbye, and next time use that small brain of yours to think.
Jul 1, 2016
0
#11
<Pickle>
Your explanation re. Kaynight was illuminating - except for one detail:
The inventor of the en passant rule could have been a person of great foresight - much more than you would appreciate.
He could have foreseen, through a vision, a premonition or a religious revelation, that several centuries later YOU would be born, and that the rule WOULD have the potential of annoying you, even in theory
Jokes aside - I'm glad that you now know the answer to your question actually.
To be sure - imagine that you're attacking by pushing forward pawns. Without that rule, at some point your opponent could just close the position by pushing a pawn two squares.
The rule allows you to keep your opponent from using that stratagem - as it won't help him to close the position.
Jul 1, 2016
0
#12
Yes, it was cold premeditated mutton.
kaynight wrote:
I have just been savaged by a dead sheep.
Jul 1, 2016
0
#13
ThePicklePacker wrote:
Thank you everyone else who answered my question, your responses were very helpful. Kaynight, of course, did nothing.
kaynight is in the peanut gallery and isn't required to do anything. 
First I've heard the rule was made to annoy me, now there is one post saying it was made to confuse me. Good Pikachu, people, get your thoughts together. Also the en passant rule does NOT annoy me. I find that without many games would be quite boring. I also want to ask why some people show a slight amount of respect towards kaynight. What has he ever done? Other than writing one line posts, of course.
Also I don't know what kaynight means by, savaged by a dead sheep. I think by dead sheep he is referring to me, but who really knees with kaynight? I am human being, or a homo sapien, if you will. Far more advanced, I am, than kaynight, who is a Neanderthal who learnt to type. Even if I was a sheep, if I was dead like kaynight said, I don't know how the heck I could have touched. Once again, kaynight, get your thoughts together.
If if you really wanted to say you've been savaged by a dead sheep, then I would suggest the following sentence: "I have been savaged, not unlike a wild sheep would attack its prey!" We took out the dead in this sentence since a dead sheep can't do anything, and instead of saying that we, directly, have been savaged by the dead sheep, we said that it was like being savaged by a dead sheep. Without the dead part. This concluded today's English class.
I also want to add I'm typing this on my iPad rather than my laptop so this takes an insanely long time. But to help kaynight through his disability, I'll do it. I'll try to write a walk when I get my laptop because apparently the last one was humorous.
Well, if Kayknight is, as you say, a Neanderthal, then he was born before the en passant rule, so......
52ndStreet wrote:
Well, if Kayknight is, as you say, a Neanderthal, then he was born before the en passant rule, so......
Jul 1, 2016
0
#18
En Passant is French. How can anything said in French possibly be annoying? Not even "laissez-les manger du gâteau" isn't annoying until it's said in English.
For the record, I like kaynight and appreciate his pithy wit.
Actually the rule make a lot of sense: Since pawns only capture diagonally forward, the rule ensures that the pawns on adjacent files must challenge each other when passing. The problem if the en passant rule didn't exist lies in the 2-square-jumper could just squirt on by like a squid covered in Crisco. We can't have that, pawns just squirting their way down to promotion without even a 'halt, who goes there?'.