Do you guys think En passant is kinda unfair?

First, we make pawns move 1 square, but that is too slow. So, we make them move 2 squares... Then, some french players realize this was a bad idea and fix it by adding en passant. That was like 500 years ago. They got it right because they watched less TV back then. Just go with it.

no hate coming from me, just opinion with explanation. odd how all capital letters create the impression of screaming or venom. better not to use them. glad you didn't ask about the castling rule, adopted at about the same time, because it's harder to come up with a simple explanation or rationale.

I do not, it makes another interesting dynamic of pawns.

@manandhyani said in #1:
> When you play an en passant move it feels great if you gain material but when you are on the receiveing end it fells so unfair.

Yes, you are absolutely right! This damn rule totally confuses me and it should be abolished without replacement.

At a children's championship several decades ago, I misapplied this rule in the decisive game. Because I was so excited, I took a wrong pawn off the board and immediately lost the game. This trauma haunts me to this day!

Me: lose
What is it: unfair

Thrice it has happened with me that I lost because of en passant:
Once, I was in dominant situation and going to win. But somehow my opponent found en passant and table turned that I eventually lost. (I did no other blunder after en passant move by opponent)
Another time, I was in a situation where it seemed that I would get the draw by getting stalemated. But then my opponent played pawn two step ahead and I had en passant as only move. I lost due to having a move.
3rd time, an even game but complex as per position was happening. I calculated so much and played a knight sacrifice that involves rook sacrifice in the variation that I calculated. Everything seemed well. But after I sacrificed the rook, somehow my opponent got opportunity for en passant and I got discovered check and eventually lost those two pieces. I had to resign soon after.
Can your chess get any more unfair regarding en passant than me?

@sparowe14 said in #13:
> 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

Feel like you explained it well. Im just too dumb to fully comprehend xD.

I'm not buying that you are dumb. If you really want to understand, take all pieces off the board, just leave pawns. Now move pawns one square at a time until they begin to come in contact. Notice, no pawn can become 'passed' without capturing a pawn on an adjacent file, or by the adjacent pawns or the one directly in front, being diverted or captured. Pawns must confront one another.

Now, advance a pawn of the opposing color to its fifth rank. If you now move one of your own pawns two squares forward from start, it gets a free pass. It slips past the opposing pawn without confronting it. In some situations, with other opposing pawns on fifth rank
or diverted, by using the double square move your pawn can squeeze past and become passed, without ever being subject to pawn capture.

The rule-makers considered it wrong for a pawn to get that dodge past opposition.

Okay, maybe my explanation is not any better, but the general idea is that pawns should clash with one another, not avoid it by skipping two squares.