Do you guys think En passant is kinda unfair?

I feel that checkmate is unfair. Frankly it's no way to treat a king. Even a harmless check is not very respectful, although one could just tolerate it. But checkmate? It's fundamentally wrong.

When my kid brother gets an ice cream and I don’t. That’s unfair!

Stamping my feet and bawling at the top of my voice at this discrimination occasionally works but more often than not, I get a good hiding for being a petulant brat.

I reported them to lichess but I didn’t get any ice creams so I guess my report failed.

the en passant rule is absolutely necessary to maintain the tension and conflicts among pawns. without it a pawn could sneak his way into the rear of the other side without confronting a pawn in the adjoining file. that to me would be incredibly unfair. pawns must must not be allowed to completely avoid confrontation with adjacent pawns. the limitation that capture must be on the following move is to avoid disputes ove when to capture.
all this rule change is caused by allowing a pawn on the original rank to move either one or two squares if an opposing pawn is alreay on the fifth rank, then the two move option could allow the pawn to skip past all danger
compare the old indian rules and the modern rules and it is obvious why en passant is a necessary and consistent rule

@manandhyani NO It's the Rules established' CENTURIES Ago' ... Please @manandhyani try not to ruin Chess with funky rule changes . Chess has Rules that aren't like others that Change

I've always felt en-passant was the result of some kind of incomprehensible French logic ...

its not unfair You just have to think a bit more (which is more than fair) Thats what chess is for, thinking. if u don't want to actually think about ur games play checkers

Hundreds of years ago someone was saying, "Do you guys think pawns moving two spaces is kinda unfair?"

and just like that En passant was born.

@Knights-n-Dragons said in #5:
> Nerf en passant!
>
> FIDE should remove it in nexy patch. >.<

The last time someone tried to create patch notes for chess versions, it devolved into complete chaos

It is not unfair at all. In my view, it would be unfair if the rule didn't exist. I once heard from someone and they argued that the King should be allowed to give check on the opposing King in an endgame , to them this seemed unfair that just because it is a King it cannot give check :) Rules are rules, and it is a good thing online chess prevents such silly arguments during a game :)

En passant is a well established feature, the necessity of which has been described by sparowe14 in this thread (#13).
As the move is available to both sides under circumstances that are specified in the rules, it is perfectly fair.