| |
Main
Date: 17 Apr 2008 15:03:15
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
I really do not like that rule .
|
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2008 21:44:04
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
On Apr 18, 6:14 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Quadibloc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > The reason for that rule is so that although the Pawn is given an
> > extra move it shouldn't really have, this extra move isn't allowed
> > to really "change" anything by letting a Pawn slip out from under
> > the guard of another Pawn - it is to have the effect of letting the
> > Pawns move forwards quicker, but nothing else.
>
> Granted but I've never understood why only pawns can capture en
> passant. Surely, if I have a knight on d5 and a pawn on b4 and my
> opponent plays Pc2-c4, I should be allowed to play Nxc3(ep) as well as
> bxc3(ep)? And I suppose that, really, if I have a queen on c5, I
> should be allowed to play Qxc3(ep) as well as Qxc4.
>
> (Yes, I fully understand what the en passant rule says. I'm
> questioning the `why', not the `what'.)
>
> Also, en passant can change things slightly because of the requirement
> that en passant captures must happen immediately. This removes the
> possibility of zwischenzugs.
In Shatranj, there were balanced elements in it that resulted a fairly
simple and balanced game, which also had ways of dealing with draws.
Well, then kids got tired of the game, so the Bishop was given extra
mobility, and then the Queen went Mad and followed suit. From then
on, it was add on after add on, complicating things. Castling was
introduced to protect the King and mobilize the rooks. The pawns were
also able to move two spaces forward, and En Passant was introduced to
fix the issues of pawns slipping by defending pawns. And the game
became a popular whirlwind as a result of all the changes. Now, you
have a game that a newbie walks up on and is perplexed by the added on
rules, and so on. They work because they have been tested by
practice, but make the game seem irrational to people. If you want to
see how weird chess looks to people who don't play, look up some
commentary on Stanley Random Chess sometime. This is what the chess
world looks like to people who don't play chess.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 20 Apr 2008 16:37:56
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
OK lets look at it another way.
The value of the pieces per 15th century. I have not read this for
sure. But Rook=7, Knight=4, Pawn=2, Queen and Bishop=1.From what I
have read the Queen and Bishop at most were equal to a Pawn.
Chess was a slow game. Having a pawn advanced to the %th rank was
more of an advantage than now. This pawn held back a pawn that could
only move 1 square. Thsi gave an outpost to the Knight the second most
powerful piece. With the pawn able to move 2 squares this power was
gone. The pawn game was a powerful force.Players would not allow the
power of the pawn to be taken away.
After the change pawns became the least powerful piece.
En Passant became a way to change the rules and keep everyone
happy, or less unhappy.
Terry
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 09:12:29
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
On Apr 19, 10:21 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> SBD <[email protected]> wrote:
> > E.P. is one of three special moves - along with castling and pawn
> > promotion. [...] Is there a variant that eliminates all three?
>
> Dunno. What would happen to pawns that reached the eighth rank?
>
> Dave.
Again, in problem chess, there is the idea of a "dummy pawn" on the
last rank - once it reaches the eighth rank it becomes no more than an
obstruction. Loyd used one a long time ago....
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 08:28:46
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
On Apr 19, 1:37 am, Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ > wrote:
> Quadibloc wrote:
>
> >As for en passant only being allowed on the next move - the reason for
> >*that* is obvious. So that there will be no arguments about how the
> >Pawn got there!
>
> They could have allowed it during the next two or three moves
> without generating too many arguments. The "only on the next
> move" rule is the closest to one pawn walking past another
> using two single steps, which IMP makes it superior to the
> other two possibilities above.
Yes, you're quite right, I missed that.
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 06:17:51
From: Wlodzimierz Holsztynski (Wlod)
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
On Apr 17, 3:03 pm, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> I really do not like that rule .
"En passant" was introduced to humor French,
to keep their grandiose illusion alive.
====
Wlod
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 05:47:38
From: SBD
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
E.P. is one of three special moves - along with castling and pawn
promotion.
Combining the three in a chess problem is known as the Valladao task.
Is there a variant that eliminates all three?
|
| | |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 16:21:47
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
SBD <[email protected] > wrote:
> E.P. is one of three special moves - along with castling and pawn
> promotion. [...] Is there a variant that eliminates all three?
Dunno. What would happen to pawns that reached the eighth rank?
Dave.
--
David Richerby Mentholated Robot (TM): it's like a
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ high-tech robot but it's invigorating!
|
| |
Date: 19 Apr 2008 07:37:31
From: Guy Macon
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
Quadibloc wrote:
>As for en passant only being allowed on the next move - the reason for
>*that* is obvious. So that there will be no arguments about how the
>Pawn got there!
They could have allowed it during the next two or three moves
without generating too many arguments. The "only on the next
move" rule is the closest to one pawn walking past another
using two single steps, which IMP makes it superior to the
other two possibilities above.
It might be interesting to play a varient where the pawn is
allowed to move three squares from the original position and
two squares if it has moved forward one square, with en passant
captures allowed by "capturing" either of the skipped squares.
--
misc.business.product-dev: a Usenet newsgroup
about the Business of Product Development.
-- Guy Macon <http://www.guymacon.com/ >
|
| |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 18:37:07
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
On Apr 18, 4:14 am, David Richerby <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Granted but I've never understood why only pawns can capture en
> passant.
It isn't consistent with the rationale I've provided, it would seem -
after all, that extra move is letting the Pawn slip by something.
But Pawn structure is static, while the pieces are only there
temporarily, so bypassing an existing Pawn structure is a more serious
matter - that could be it.
Still, it contradicts the castling rule - the King can't cross a
square that is attacked by any piece, not just a Pawn.
As for en passant only being allowed on the next move - the reason for
*that* is obvious. So that there will be no arguments about how the
Pawn got there!
John Savard
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 19:07:20
From: Quadibloc
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
On Apr 17, 4:03 pm, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> I really do not like that rule .
The reason for that rule is so that although the Pawn is given an
extra move it shouldn't really have, this extra move isn't allowed to
really "change" anything by letting a Pawn slip out from under the
guard of another Pawn - it is to have the effect of letting the Pawns
move forwards quicker, but nothing else.
John Savard
|
| | |
Date: 18 Apr 2008 11:14:06
From: David Richerby
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
Quadibloc <[email protected] > wrote:
> The reason for that rule is so that although the Pawn is given an
> extra move it shouldn't really have, this extra move isn't allowed
> to really "change" anything by letting a Pawn slip out from under
> the guard of another Pawn - it is to have the effect of letting the
> Pawns move forwards quicker, but nothing else.
Granted but I've never understood why only pawns can capture en
passant. Surely, if I have a knight on d5 and a pawn on b4 and my
opponent plays Pc2-c4, I should be allowed to play Nxc3(ep) as well as
bxc3(ep)? And I suppose that, really, if I have a queen on c5, I
should be allowed to play Qxc3(ep) as well as Qxc4.
(Yes, I fully understand what the en passant rule says. I'm
questioning the `why', not the `what'.)
Also, en passant can change things slightly because of the requirement
that en passant captures must happen immediately. This removes the
possibility of zwischenzugs.
Dave.
--
David Richerby Psychotic Perforated Atlas (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a map of the world but it's full
of holes and it wants to kill you!
|
| | |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 21:24:00
From: SAT W-7
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
Thanks for that info ..
i rarely ever have the move come up but i just wish it was not in the
game..
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 17:24:33
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
On Apr 17, 6:03 pm, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> I really do not like that rule .
Take two here. You can always play Near Chess if you happen to not
like En Passant. You can see the rules here:
http://www.chessvariants.org/index/msdisplay.php?itemid=MSnearchess
It also gets rid of castling and the 8 queen on the board promotion
issue that has players flipping rooks if they want a second queen. If
you prefer, you can try to play using Near Chess rules against someone
else playing with normal chess rules, and not allow yourself En
Passant.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 17:22:22
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
On Apr 17, 7:10 pm, "[email protected]" <[email protected] >
wrote:
> Before the rule change in the 15th century pawns could move only 1
> square. They decided it was best to keep the capture in for 1
> move.Please learn the correct way to apply this rule.I have known
> players to not do this rule correctly.
> Terry
I know how En-Passant works. What I was saying is that, when they
decided to give pawns two moves mobility, En Passant came into being
was to provide the capturing of the pawn opportunity that was lost due
to the double move. When you don't have the double move initially,
then En Passant isn't needed.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 16:10:49
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
Before the rule change in the 15th century pawns could move only 1
square. They decided it was best to keep the capture in for 1
move.Please learn the correct way to apply this rule.I have known
players to not do this rule correctly.
Terry
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 15:24:57
From: Rich Hutnik
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
On Apr 17, 6:03 pm, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> I really do not like that rule .
Want to get rid of it? Well, have pawns only move one space, then it
isn't relevant.
- Rich
|
| |
Date: 17 Apr 2008 15:22:34
From:
Subject: Re: Why do they have the ( EN - PASSANT ) Rule ?
|
On Apr 17, 6:03=A0pm, [email protected] (SAT W-7) wrote:
> =A0 I really do not like that rule .
Tough beans. It stays.
|
|
