Talk:En passant
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Just curious....I have a slight doubt over this application....does it only apply on the third or sixth ranks, or the seventh or second in addition? From the description, it seems only that if say, a black pawn is on square f4, for example. A white pawn on g2 moving to g4 would no doubt get captured. However, if the black pawn existed on square f3, and the white pawn on g2 moves to g4, can the black pawn capture it by moving to g2? I think its probably just the former example, but I Have some doubts. I just want this to be rectified, thanks! -- Natalinasmpf 11:08, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
- You're correct. It's the former example. Eric119 19:50, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've removed the following image from the article:
It's wrong - the white pawn should start on e5 (not e6) and capture on f6 (not f7). If somebody can remake the image so it shows this, it would certainly be a useful addition to the article. --Camembert
- Fixed. TrbleClef 23:03, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I remember hearing a different "english" name for the "En Passant" rule, esp in 80's home computer chess-programs, anybody got a clue?
- the only such english name I've heard is "in passing", which is what "En Passant" means. --Bubba73 05:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Rationale
- ...it was intended that time-honored defensive settings should not be invalidated by allowing pawns to sneak past opposing pawns.
I've read this somewhere, too, but does anyone know what "time-honored defensive settings" exactly were preserved? Have any of them survived the intervening few hundred years? A list of openings or variants that include an en passant would be useful here and might provide a little window into an opening that was popular long ago. Tempshill 17:31, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
- I think I'd also be interested to know what sort of "time-honored defensive settings" would be preserved. Because, honestly, for everything else, en passant is completely useless. The only time I've ever had the opportunity to use it was in casual play with someone who had never heard of it. And they didn't believe me. Marksman45 04:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
-
- Well, just looking at it logically, back in the 14th century, there were no real defined opening. Even basic and ancient openings like the Giuoco Piano were not well-explored. I think it likely that early chess games involved virtually none of the planning and studying done beforehand in modern chess, thus causing strange openings and a failure to exploit mistakes that might now be obvious. —CuiviénenT|C|@ on Thursday, 1 June 2006 at 20:26 UTC
-
-
- I don't know if this is quite what you are talking about, but condider 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 (French Advance variation). Now Black's f-pawn can't slip past White's e-pawn with ... f5. I've had e.p. come up several times and once I blew a tournament game because I forgot about it. Bubba73 (talk), 22:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- I prefer to think of it as it is: legalized cheating. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bear Eagleson (talk • contribs) 19:40, 30 September 2006} (UTC).
-
-
-
-
-
-
- That's a contradiction in terms. Eric119 03:05, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Other Uses
Normal Wikipedia styles doesn't allow multiple subjects in one article.
The best way to deal with this is to have a disambiguation page, and separate articles for "En Passant (Chess)", "En Passant (Medical), and "En Passant (Bridge)".
Alternately, if the chess subject is by far the most common use, there can be no disabiguation page, this article can remain just "En Passant", and an introductory paragraph at the top of this article can be added that states something like "This is an article about the chess move 'en passant. For the medical use of the term, see En Passant (Medical), for the use of the term in bridge, see En Passant (Bridge).
In both cases, stub articles should be created for the medical and bridge subject, with of course links to fuller articles (medical, bridge) which mention those subjects.
[edit] Only with pawns?
So let me get this straight, you can only capture other pawns with en passant? Thanks. --JDitto 05:42, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- That is correct. Baccyak4H (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
- What about using your bishop to capture an opposing pawn? 68.218.16.254 04:16, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] removed section
I removed a section titles "Variations" which stated: In the Illustrated Book of Chess (available in England prior to 1978), it stated that the pawn can be captured "en passant" using any piece, although pawns are usually used. I cannot find any listing of such a book, and at any rate the rule is not standard, unless it is in some variant of chess. Bubba73 (talk), 18:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
