Talk:En passant

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Chess Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-Importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Just curious

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:

Image:EnPassant.png

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)

The image on the page is now completely wrong, as the white pawn should never start on black's side of the board. STLocutus

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)

[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. —Preceding unsigned comment 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)
No, it's perfectly legal, and logical as well. I had e.p. used against me to foil some of my endgame plans before. Delirious prince 04:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
It means the old style defences against situations wher eyou could only jump one square with a pawn can still be counteracted as though you took one jump.It makes sense, it spends up game play openings can be set up quickly but also can still be defended against in the old ways.Wolfmankurd 19:14, 20 April 2007 (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)
Nope. A piece (bishop, knight, etc) can NOT capture a pawn e.p. - it is a pawn's privilege. Delirious prince 04:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone come up with a rationale for why only pawns can perform e.p. captures? The history and reasoning I've seen seem to support other pieces' being allowed to capture, but of course that is not the rule. Any thoughts? Better, does anyone have any more specific historical information about this (for inclusion in the article)? See http://www.chessatwork.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=80386 for some discussion. Thanks. Holy 18:37, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Only pawns had a rule change applied to their movement which was intended to have only a narrow impact on the play of the game? In reality though, it doesn't matter; the rules are as they are. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 19:13, 8 November 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)

See my above quote, it's most likely a chess variant. I've heard of such a variant before where pieces can also be captured e.p.Delirious prince 04:37, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

But I don't understand. The stated reasons behind the En passent move are to eliminate bypassing standard playing situations while speeding up the game, then why should only another pawn be able to take advantage of this? I am puzzled! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.224.221.230 (talk) 01:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why can't I en passant here?

Black moved f7-f5+

I want to capture with e takes f6 but Yahoo! Chess wouldn't let me make the move! --ipodracer 07:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Because Yahoo! Chess apparently does not properly support en passant. Your proposed move is legal. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 13:29, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
I thought you could only do it the move after the situation arises, as in if you want to use e.p. you must use it as soon as the opertunity arises. And only after they move their pawn two steps. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wolfmankurd (talk • contribs) 21:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC).
Wolfmankurd is correct. The move must be made the moment it becomes available, or the priviledge is lost.STLocutus

[edit] time limitation to e.p.?

is there a time limit, if you will,for using e.p.? My son was told at a tournament that he could only e.p. during the opening only. My husband is now wanting to use the move and my six year old is insisting that is not legal since it is "not the beginning of the game". any comments will be helpful! Krystyneo 02:23, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no such limit. The six year old may have been confused by the following fact. While it's true that any time a pawn moves ahead two spaces in one turn, any enemy pawn to the immediate left or right of the square it lands on may capture en passant, it's also true that if no capture is made en passant on the move immediately following the two space jump, then the jumping pawn may no longer be captured en passant during the rest of the game. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.195.90.176 (talk • contribs) 6:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The only restriction to e.p. is that the opponent must perform the capture immediately after the opposing pawn moves two spaces, otherwise the right is lost. Note that whether a pawn can be captured e.p. also affects whether a position is considered the same, under the triple repetition rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Delirious prince (talk • contribs) 3:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] change to illustration

I was wondering if it might make the illustration clearer if there was a black pawn (or some other piece) on g6 in all three steps, just to make it more obvious where they are moving (particularly the last step, where you have only a single piece on the board now). It might be more confusing, but it might be something to try and see. -- Sfnhltb 19:11, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Another possibility in the same spirit would be to have a plausible game position in full. I suppose a super strict interpretation of no original research might argue against that, but I think it worth discussion at least. In lieu of that, it would be nice to use white and black arrows in the appropriate place, but I do not know if that is possible. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 01:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I see your point. I put an X on the square that the black pawn moves over, and to which the white pawn moves, to help make it clearer. If editors think that doesn't help, undo it and put a pawn on g6 or something. Bubba73 (talk), 23:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
That seems to work. I think I will tinker with the captions to make clearer the significance of that square. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 01:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Update. I updated the captions. Also added <br>s (linebreaks) so the vertical justification of the three boards and captions are the same. The drawback is there is a lot of whitespace in the latter two captions, especially the last. Comments? Baccyak4H (Yak!) 02:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that is good. Bubba73 (talk), 03:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I think it's better for new players that way. --JDitto 05:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] historical context section

This section is a great idea, but I have long thought its wording, especially the second paragraph, could use some improvement. I just made some not too large changes, but want to take a crack at a fuller rewrite. Let me post here a version (~17 July) before I started for reference.

The idea behind en passant was that when the two-square first move for pawns was introduced to speed up the opening phase, this should not allow pawns to sneak past opposing pawns. Although a novice introduced to en passant by an opponent in the course of a game will often react with incredulity at the apparent illogic of this rule, upon closer examination it makes sense. As its name implies, the conceit is that a pawn, which ordinarily moves only one square at a time, cannot move immediately to a square two rows ahead. It is thus vulnerable to being captured "in passing" through the first square to get to the second. The same principle can be seen in the rule that one cannot castle through check. Since a king ordinarily moves only one square at a time, he cannot move two squares at once, and thus renders himself vulnerable to being captured in passing through the first square. Since by the conventions of chess, a king is not allowed to put himself into check, castling through check is not allowed.

I am going to be bold, but wanted to give a heads-up and give some rationale for my actions. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean "concept" instead of "conceit"? I'm glad you took out the sentence you took out. Bubba73 (talk), 15:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
"conceit" has been there for some time, and when it was recently changed by someone else like your suggestion, someone reverted it back right away. But this usage is not one I am familiar with. I hope to rewrite that paragraph to make the word choice moot. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:07, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
According to Wiktionary, "conceit" can mean "something conceived, especially, a novel or fanciful idea". I guess that does make some sense then. However, I am still conceiving (sorry) of a way to get rid of it and improve the paragraph. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 16:39, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I think it is confusing here. I'd prefer "concept" or "idea". Bubba73 (talk), 16:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't object to either change. "convention", "suggestion" or "heuristic" also come to mind. There is, I think, a connotation in "conceit" of being stated or even invented for a particular purpose (like "contrivance" perhaps but weaker) that is not present in those words (except maybe "convention"). My gut reaction here is that the simplicity of your suggestions outweigh the subtleties of these others, if indeed that connotation is an advantage in the first place. Go for it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe that conceit has the connotation you describe. Considering that you had just found out this meaning of the word that day (August 10), how would you have any sense of what the connotations are? (I don't mean to offend by this question; I simply don't understand). JudahH (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
(partial undent) For the records, I just changed it to "idea". Baccyak4H (Yak!) 17:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
As the person who originally wrote the paragraph with the word "conceit" let me say that the word choice was deliberate. The more applicable def. at Wiktionary is "In literature and poetry, a device of analogy consisting of an extended metaphor". Somewhat more specifically, answers.com has "A fanciful poetic image, especially an elaborate or exaggerated comparison." Conceit in the sense of a somewhat fanciful extended metaphor is a more precise word than the vague "idea" or "concept", and should not be confusing to anyone who knows the word.
That said, I don't feel the need to get into an edit war over a tiny detail like that, so unless someone responds here on the Talk Page, I won't change it back now.JudahH (talk) 23:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Since this is an encyclopedia, not literature or poetry, I also think "conceit" is a poor word choice here. I don't see any analogy or extended metaphor in the motivation for the en passant rule. The real problem is that the entire final paragraph of the section is uncited and not supported by the reference listed in the article, so it may be WP:OR original research. I removed it. If it is cited, it can be restored. Quale (talk) 09:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The metaphor is that the pawn is an actual man that can move so much at a time. The extension is that where the pawn moves two squares, it is possible to kill it as it passes through the first. A conceit isn't limited to literature and poetry, as witness the def of the AHD at answers.com.
In any case, although the paragraph was uncited, at least part of it was evident from the word en passant itself: the pawn is taken "in passing".JudahH (talk) 12:56, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Importance rating of the article

In my opinion, this article is probably of "High" importance instead of "Mid" importance. It is a rule of chess. Yes, it is covered in rules of chess, but this article is read an average of about 400 times per day. The other special rules castling and promotion (chess) both have "high" importance, yet Castling is read only about 250 times per day and Promotion only about 100. Bubba73 (talk), 01:23, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. High traffic figures indicates people are viewing it and rules of chess are not enough for them. It's not easy to understand and it's hard to explain as well! SunCreator (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I know I'm selecting a particularly extreme example, but just look at the importance on this Talk:Decoy_(chess). SunCreator (talk) 09:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I think Decoy should not be High, and this one should be High. Bubba73 (talk), 13:49, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
See this for the stats on times read per day. Bubba73 (talk), 14:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Changed both. SunCreator (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)