Talk:En passant/Archive 1

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:



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)

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. — C uivi é nenT 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)

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.

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)


 * The e.p. rule was added when pawns got the option of moving two squares on their first move. This would allow them to pass by an opposing pawn on an adjacent file without being subject to capture.  Other pieces could always move to block or capture the pawn after it moves two squares.  I think that is the reason. Bubba73 (Who's attacking me now?), 06:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The truth is that when they were modifying the rules they could have just as easily allowed all pieces to capture a pawn in the style of en passant. It's very logical. Afterall if the point was to not allow a pawn to take too well of an advantage with its two-square move ability, then wouldn't a logical extension of this rule be to allow all pieces to capture by moving to the "passing square"? As an experienced chess player myself I can tell you there have been many times where I've intuitively (especially in blitz) wanted to capture an opposing pawn on its third rank after it's moved to its fourth rank as if en passant. Of course I know/knew that is only for pawns but it's very natural. I'm very curious if there was any debate or variants at the time that the rules were being modified to allow not just pawns to capture but all pieces. 24.111.116.220 (talk) 03:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Matt S.


 * This is how it is now, but till way back early '90s the any piece capture is perfectly valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.192.21 (talk) 05:33, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Wrong. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:35, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sure of this, it was perfectly valid to do an any piece for en passant. May I know why you think you are right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.192.21 (talk) 06:58, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sure you are wrong. See the rulebooks. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Suggest you check when the rule was introduced, because a lot of us grew up with that being valid. Perhaps it changed in mid 80s? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.18.192.21 (talk • contribs)


 * No, before the year 1600. Suggest you read En passant.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 13:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Clarification: the rule started before 1600, and it has always been with pawns only. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 20:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It was limited to pawns in 1961 when I learned the game. If the rule were different even over a century ago, don't you think we'd see an example of a difference somewhere in the games of Anderssen, Morphy, etc.? WHPratt (talk) 13:28, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * The historical context talks about when en passant was introduced, not the "only pawns" case. For the record I may be wrong here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs)


 * It has never been applied to anything except pawns. It didn't change in the 1980s. The second paragraph of the historical context section also talks about the rationale of the rule, which applies to pawns only. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:25, 31 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Well that is news to me because we used to get pooped as kids by our elders saying that it is perfectly valid. Note that this is ofcourse specific to an Indian context, though tournament rules were always "only pawn". -Alok 05:04, 1 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs)


 * Your elders didn't know the rules. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:12, 1 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well any engagement has rules, and frankly, once given the explanation that the pawn 2 move was introduced at a later stage, the logic seems right. Also note, chess did originate in India and Persia so perhaps I would give my elders more benefits on the rules. Either ways, there is no reason to discredit them for this, is there? -Alok 05:41, 6 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs)


 * I think maybe chess may be played with slightly different local rules in some parts of India. Although this was some time ago, Mir Sultan Khan was a fantastically strong (Western) chess player, but was said to be even better at Indian chess. Quale (talk) 03:07, 7 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, but Indian chess doesn't have the two-square pawn move or en passant. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:06, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You are right, hence one interpretation of that "illustration" is that "pawn moves 2 (but the pawn can be taken any piece)" to speed up the game. Not "one cannot take it with nothing but a pawn". Back in the '80s there was no internet mate :) and "you talking to me?" was generally decided by who is bigger :)) -Alok 06:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs)
 * There was no internet then but there were rulebooks and many books giving the rules of chess. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:08, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Rule book says "a pawn may take a piece" does that imply any other piece cant? The interpretation of that rule is manifold, which is exactly what was written here and why we are having this debate. For someone who has assumed that the original move was "1 step for pawn", he would go over the rules, agree that the rule was made to speed up the game, and hence the logic of any piece is inherent -Alok — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs) 06:28, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * If the rule says "a pawn may take a piece", that implies pawns can do, not pieces. I do not see any need for interpretation, the rule is crystal-clear and has always been. SyG (talk) 06:38, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Must be crystal clear, no wonder so many people posted here asking that question :) -Alok 06:47, 9 June 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alokdube (talk • contribs)
 * A pawn may take a piece. But that doesn't mean that a piece can take a pawn by en passant when the pawn moves two squares.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:12, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

I think that a vintage chess computer (from the 1970s) allowed this too. - Mark. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.232.150.252 (talk) 00:46, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

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

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)

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   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)
 * The introductory chess book that I learned from as a 10-year old described the rule slightly differently: it said that, immediately after an opponent's pawn had made the double step, you were entitled to push it back one square and capture it there. The effect is exactly the same.  Now, this invalidates the literal meaning of en passant, but may be more comprehensible to a beginner.  Instead of an extraordinary capture that occupies one square and vacates two others and the blindfold "as if it had moved one square" concept, we have the exercise of a special privilege followed by a perfectly ordinary pawn capture. WHPratt (talk) 14:26, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, except that it would be a special privilege to move the opposing pawn back one square before capturing it. The rules don't allow that.  But it is a useful idea.  But I wouldn't want people to think they had the privilege of moving the pawn back one square and not capturing it.
 * For some reason, it is really hard for most kids to understand. I try to explain the reason for it, then the rule should be clear.  Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 00:26, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

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)

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)

discussion on chess project
From Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chess:

Someone please look at the recent change to En passant and give an opinion. Bubba73 (talk), 00:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I reverted it, as you had done earlier. The change was was overly wordy and just made it worse. 24.177.121.141 (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It strikes me that the lead is not a lead in the sense that it's not a summary of the page. The IP editors amendment seems factually correct but it's rather long winded. It would seem sensible to attempt to contact the IP editor directly via the talk page otherwise the same reverting may continue for some time. SunCreator (talk) 01:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I also thought that it was too redundant and wordy, and I commented that in my reverts. But I had already reverted twice today... Bubba73 (talk), 02:26, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

En passant unfair to other attacking pieces
By the current en passant rule, if a pawn hops over a square attacked by an opposing pawn, the opposing pawn may on the next move capture the pawn as if it had moved one square. So why doesn't en passant capture apply to other opposing pieces? What if a pawn hops over a square attacked by, say, an opposing knight? Doesn't that rob the knight of a legitimate attack? Shouldn't the knight also have the opportunity to capture the pawn on the next move as if it had moved one square? Mohanchous (talk) 00:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * What in the article would your desired clarifiations help improve? I am not being flippant -- I genuinely do not know what you wish to address or change in the current article.  Baccyak4H (Yak!) 03:34, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think, he may want his criticism included in the article, in which case, if you can find similar criticism published in a wp:reliable source, then go ahead in add it. although, I personally do not agree with your criticism.--UltraMagnusspeak 17:53, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

En passante
FIDE spells it 'En passante' SunCreator (talk) 01:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Elsewhere they spell it "en passant". The inconsistency is curious. I would have thought there was a typo, but "en passante" occurs twice on that page. Eric119 (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I asked a university French teacher and he says that passante is an error.   Bubba73 (the argument clinic), 16:03, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Misspelling it is. Thanks SunCreator (talk) 12:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Anecdote
Supposedly, some chess master was giving a simultaneous exhibition when one his opponents ordered a glass of wine, but wasn't at his board when it was delivered. The master seized the glass, drank it down, and moved on to the next board, explaining "My opponent left a glass of wine en prise, so I took it en passant."

I think I read that in George Koltanowski's column many years ago. Perhaps someone can pin it down. WHPratt (talk) 20:23, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I just checked: it's already in the article on J. H. Blackburne. Might be fun to repeat it here. WHPratt (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it can go hwere, but it needs a reference (otherwise it could be apocryphal) . Bubba73 (You talkin' to me?), 20:57, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm almost certain it's apocryphal! Not suggested as history, but rather as popular culture, putting two evocative chess terms to good use.  The version with the simul makes more sense, as in those the master player truly plays en passant. WHPratt (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Notable obscurity?
The En passant rule seems to be notable due to the fact that few people know about it - it's one of the least-known rules of chess, at least to the general public. Anyone who knows anything at all about chess probably knows all of the basic moves of the pieces (up to and including castling, but not usually beyond that), but only people who know the game really well seem to be familiar with En passant. It actually seems like it's so well known for being not well known that the phrase "En passant" is often used to describe obscure and not-widely-known rules in other games and even in sports. I only have common knowledge to back this up though - can anyone find legitimate sources about other such uses in order to add a statement to that effect in the article? Lurlock (talk) 19:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * En passant is one of the basic rules of chess. It is in all (modern) lists of the rules.  My daughter knew it when she was in the first grade.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, it's in all of the standard rulebooks. This is not disputed.  But it is one of the lesser-known rules, and very rarely put into practice, given that it can only be used under very specific circumstances, and only when the other player instigates it.  (Most experienced chess players would probably not put themselves into a situation where their opponent could make use of the rule.)  I've heard the term used in many non-chess contexts to refer to similarly under-used rules.  Lurlock (talk) 03:06, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have statistics at hand, but en passant isn't exactly rare. It isn't a "lesser-known rule", except perhaps among some novices.  If a player doesn't know the rule, it is because they didn't read all of the list, since it is on every list of rules.  It is part of the move of the pawn.  I don't understand what you say about the opponent "instigating" the rule, since many applications of a capture are similarly the result of the opponent's move.  I don't agree with your statement that most experienced players would not put themselves in such a position.  I haven't heard the term used as you say.  The term is even used in bridge (in a different context of course): Coup en passant.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:52, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I understand both of your points here. It IS a lesser known rule, I can attest to that having played many players to whom I've had to explain the rule growing up. Most people learn chess from a friend or family member, not by reading a rule book and en passant is not passed along a very high percentage of the time. Just look at many chess websites where serious players play. If you look at their FAQ section they'll often have a special section singling out and explaining en passant because so many people don't understand what's going on when their opponent plays e.p. against them. They think it's a glitch or a bug. However, I don't really think it's an article's place to comment on itself on the rarity of the knowledge it's giving. It should give the knowledge and not attempt to make the reader feel like what they're reading is common or uncommon knowledge. Afterall you probably won't see the sections explaining the most commonly known rules stating that they are the most commonly known rules. Secondly, saying that an experienced player wouldn't allow an e.p. position to occur is rubbish. Capturing en passant may result in a good, bad, or even position therefor it is a position that any strength of player could be happy to allow, depending on the situation. -Matt S. 24.111.116.220 (talk) 04:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * To the notion that "most experienced chess players would probably not put themselves into a situation where their opponent could make use of the rule": if a player would prefer to take a two-tile move with their pawn, but chooses not to because of e.p., then that player has been PUT in a situation where their opponent is making use of the rule, without the player having instigated it. The rule influences the game whether or not the move is actually played. The frequency at which it is actually played is less than the frequency at which the possibility of playing it is a consideration for players. 2603:6000:B200:A00:487C:BAF4:DE02:EF86 (talk) 15:10, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It isn't a basic move, it's a move only pawns can do, only to other pawns, only in very specific circumstances. It isn't something basic players will often encounter due to a tendency to push all pawns up. Ranze (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2013 (UTC)


 * I also think it would be a good idea to add a section about this. En Passant also has a very important role in chess humor and culture.

List of all possible En Passant moves
Editors let me know if you think this might have a place on this page. It's a list of all possible combinations of moves where an en passant capture can occur, starting with black capturing white en passant and then white capturing black.


 * A white pawn from a2 to a4 followed by a black pawn from b4 to a3
 * A white pawn from b2 to b4 followed by a black pawn from a4 or c4 to b3
 * A white pawn from c2 to c4 followed by a black pawn from b4 or d4 to c3
 * A white pawn from d2 to d4 followed by a black pawn from c4 or e4 to d3
 * A white pawn from e2 to e4 followed by a black pawn from d4 or f4 to e3
 * A white pawn from f2 to f4 followed by a black pawn from e4 or g4 to f3
 * A white pawn from g2 to g4 followed by a black pawn from f4 or h4 to g3
 * A white pawn from h2 to h4 followed by a black pawn from g4 to h3


 * A black pawn from a7 to a5 followed by a white pawn from b5 to a6
 * A black pawn from b7 to b5 followed by a white pawn from a5 or c5 to b6
 * A black pawn from c7 to c5 followed by a white pawn from b5 or d5 to c6
 * A black pawn from d7 to d5 followed by a white pawn from c5 or e5 to d6
 * A black pawn from e7 to e5 followed by a white pawn from d5 or f5 to e6
 * A black pawn from f7 to f5 followed by a white pawn from e5 or g5 to f6
 * A black pawn from g7 to g5 followed by a white pawn from f5 or h5 to g6
 * A black pawn from h7 to h5 followed by a white pawn from g5 to h6

I'm thinking it might be too much "just a list" without enough real context, however I could see how a beginner trying to find out exactly when/if en passant is legal would want to look at this list and just make sure it's there. Or perhaps to settle a debate. Maybe it can be converted to a grid? -Matt S. 24.111.116.220 (talk) 05:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting idea, but I agree with your statement that it is "too much just a list". A beginner would not be really helped by that list because he would have difficulties with the notation. SyG (talk) 09:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Trivial information and would imagine you could not reference it. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 12:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that such a table (at the bottom of the article) could be worthwhile. An encyclopedia ought to be, well, encyclopedic.  If something can be covered completely in a list of 16 items, who not do it?  (I would add a column showing on what square the capturing pawn ends up.) If you were playing a game and made such a capture, only to have the opponent say "You can't do that!" wouldn't it be easier to show him or her the table and say, "There!  Line 11.  It's legal.  Your move."  As it is now, you'd have to tell your opponent to study this article for half an hour, and he probably still wouldn't believe you. WHPratt (talk) 13:27, 2 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think such a table should be added. The description of the move gives the same information much more concisely (and intuitively).  It is better to have a description of the move of a queen than list every possible queen move.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:21, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I've never seen any other source list all the possible en passant captures, which strongly suggests to me that most people don't think that such a list is useful. My personal opinion is that it's pointless.  It's easier to understand the rule and the idea behind it than memorize all the individual possibilities. Quale (talk) 03:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Now, exactly where did I suggest removing the definition and replacing it with the table? Or sugggest that said table should be memorized rather than learning the definition?  Do I sense a straw man here?
 * You can figure out your income tax, given your income and the rate, with some math, but they put it in a table so that you won't have to.
 * If it's all really so concise and intuitive, why are there so many questions (see above) as to which e.p. captures are legal? I merely suggested that if a dispute arose, it could be useful to have the specific move validated in black and white.  Yes, you can't find this anywhere else. Good chess players won't be consulting this, yet we shouldn't help beginners at the cost of a few square inches of text?  This is what reference books (and sites) are for. WHPratt (talk) 12:22, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Most of the questions seem to be about whether pieces other than the pawn can do it and about it only being available at the first opportunity. These are addressed in the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 14:45, 3 June 2011 (UTC)
 * This discussion reminded me of when I learned chess (from a book). A description (definition), and example, guided my understanding perfectly.  (A table of possible e.p.'s would have been, I'm sure, confusing and intimidating.  So I'm of the view that a table is interesting, but totally counter-productive as far as education, especially for beginners.)  Ihardlythinkso (talk) 09:26, 10 June 2011 (UTC)
 * My first chess set had a little booklet - it must have been in there. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:27, 12 June 2011 (UTC)

"the capture is optional"
Under the rules section it states, "the capture is optional, but if elected must be done immediately (cannot be done on a later turn)"

This leads me to believe that you may make the (diagonal) move without capturing the enemy piece (ie. the enemy pawn remains in play and your pawn has moved "behind" it). Is this the case?

If it is not the case, aren't all captures "optional" in a non-checkmate situation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.133.48 (talk) 03:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)


 * That is worded a little ambiguously. Making the move (which is a capture) is optional, like any other move.  You cannot simply move diagonally without capturing the pawn.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:34, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
 * There are hoaxes, particularly those propagated by r/anarchychess, about en passant being forced. Maybe keep it. Adeeta (talk) 21:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Unusual problem
At En_passant the first image notes "Position after 12...f7–f5" which makes sense since you can see the black pawn moved forward 2 spaces.

What I don't follow is move 13: "h5+ Kh6"

I'm new to algebraic notation here, but "after 12" (when 13 would begin) there is no piece on h5. Is it meant to describe that the pawn at h4 moves into that position to check the king at h6?

I don't understand the notation though, because the white queen could also move to h5 to check the king. How does this notation specify the use of the pawn and not the queen? Ranze (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, 13. h5+ indicates a pawn move. This is all explained at algebraic notation (chess). Sasata (talk) 18:52, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Real life examples?
I would like to see some examples in which an en passant capture has been used by real players in match or tournament conditions. Also how prevalent it is, i.e. in what percentage of games one might expect to see the rule invoked. Intuitively I imagine it is quite rare, but I'm not certain of that. &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Underpromotion is rare, e.p. is commonplace. The # of GM games containing w/ be sky high (what criteria would you use to pick one? maybe a Carlsen game would be timely!?), & I'm guessing no one has ever tried to compile a % stat. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * ChessBase was a way to look for certain things, but not e.p. - at least not in CB9, which is two versions old. But it would be good to have an example by a famous player done early in the game.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * On second thought, maybe it isn't important to have examples from games. It is only a rule about moves - it isn't a tactic.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:52, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Makes sense. But then, there's a Notable examples sec in Castling. Ihardlythinkso (talk) 08:19, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The "unusual examples" in this article has an example from a game. It wouldn't hurt to put another example from a game in.  Based on my games and those of my daughter, I estimate that about 1-2% of games have e.p. in them.  But that is an estimate based on a small number of non-repesentative games.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:56, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I've added another example from a game. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 17:07, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion re "Notation"
It now reads "In either algebraic or descriptive chess notation, en passant captures are sometimes denoted by "e.p." or similar, but such notation is not required. In algebraic notation, the move is written as if the captured pawn advanced only one square, for example, bxa3 (or bxa3e.p.) in this example."

I'd suggest adding a word so that it reads "... the capturing move is written as if ... ." I wouldn't want the reader to get the idea that the half-move that made the capture possible is recorded as a one-step pawn advance, e.g. that "a4" gets retroactively recorded as "a3" if an e.p. capture immediately follows. I found the passage ambiguous upon first reading. WHPratt (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hearing no dissent, I've added one word. WHPratt (talk) 06:01, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

re 1902 composition by Sommerfeldt
"Simultaneously pinned and unpinned" sounds awkward to me. What about "pinned with respect to capturing, but not pinned with respect to moving"? 108.20.114.62 (talk) 22:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I've tried to make it clearer. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:02, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Missing images
The chessboard images (Chessboard480.svg) under "examples" are broken. Mentioning it here because I don't know how to replace them myself. 20:27, 30 January 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D0C0:A60:1509:7258:DC8B:18A4 (talk)

What does "if neither side errs" mean?
I am so confused, [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=En_passant&oldid=1019049285#targetText=neither%20side%20errs. link], if it doesnt scroll to the right area, its under Unusual Examples Aschoolaccount (talk) 07:00, 29 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Where did the link come from? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 18:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
 * what do you mean? Aschoolaccount (talk) 06:39, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The diagram has been moved so does it scroll correctly now? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 19:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Holy hell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C5A:567F:8BAA:0:0:0:164 (talk) 01:49, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Brick to Pipi
According to reddit.com/r/anarchychess En passant is enfored by a brick 2 pipi. 175.107.224.141 (talk) 12:22, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
 * While ridiculous, this does arguably have cultural relevance.95.146.225.102 (talk) 13:28, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Haha, yes, PIPI pampers and such.
 * In all seriousness, this doesn't seem notable enough to include on Wikipedia. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 03:31, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

First sentence
Given that this article is about the move itself and not the rule that describes the move, shouldn't the first sentence be worded as such? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:51, 11 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd never noticed it before but, actually, yes! Try a minor rewrite to change this? Obviously the two things are thoroughly tied together but in the initial mention I agree that it should describe the process, not that it is a rule that makes it happen ... cheers DBaK (talk) 10:57, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, you'd never noticed it before, huh? Let me tell you a tale.
 * The first sentence of this article was only changed to its current state very recently. See, before the edit, it did state, "The en passant capture is a move in chess." I've decided to open this discussion in order to reach a consensus on the wording. On that note, thank you for dropping by and offering your input on the matter. (Does that sound sarcastic? It's not supposed to.)
 * Calling User:MaxBrowne2, which I should have done in the first place. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Alright, I guess MaxBrowne2 is a no-show. You edit it if you want it edited; I don't care anymore. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 09:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)

Lead wording
Alright, I'm editing the lead sentences again. This time, I think the wording isn't so awkward. Hopefully I'm correct. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Long algebraic notation: dash or no?
We have a way of doing things here on Wikipedia. We don't get into silly edit wars, we don't go to users' talk pages to insult them, and we most certainly don't make statements that we can't support. A citation, most certainly, is needed. And I have my own.

Article C.8 of the FIDE Laws of Chess is as follows:

"Each move of a piece is indicated by the abbreviation of the name of the piece in question and the square of arrival. There is no need for a hyphen between name and square. Examples: Be5, Nf3, Rd1. In the case of pawns, only the square of arrival is indicated. Examples: e5, d4, a5. A longer form containing the square of departure is acceptable. Examples: Bb2e5, Ng1f3, Ra1d1, e7e5, d2d4, a6a5."

And there you have it, MaxBrowne2. I await your response. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 06:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * The FIDE rules that I just downloaded doesn't have the sentence about the longer form. Algebraic_notation_(chess)  says either.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 07:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * Using a hyphen in long-form AN is fairly if not totally consistent in WP:CHESS articles. The FIDE quote says unnecessary, not incorrect. Some WP:CHESS editing conventions might seem arbitrary choices, arrived through some discussion or just repeated use. Some are documented but not all. And there are still lacunas in WP:CHESS editing conventions that result in inconsistencies according to individual editor preference as a result of insufficient interest or participation to discuss or resolve. --IHTS (talk) 07:36, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * , re this edit, hyphens are a part of WP:CHESS edit convention for long-form AN. But WP:CHESS articles use short-form, not long-form. So when using short-form to express "to" and "from" squares, an en dash is appropriate, even correct, per MOS:NDASH. (If instead a hyphen were used, it w/ be long-form notation, not short-form, so expressing "to" and "from" w/ then have unintended consequence of "mixing" notations, two different notation systems in a single article - not good!) --IHTS (talk) 11:10, 7 July 2022 (UTC)


 * This is not a matter of citations or sources but of consensus. For tree-saving reasons long form algebraic notation is rarely used in books, but when I've seen it, it usually includes a dash, for example in the translator's note on page 74 of the 1971 Batsford edition of Think Like a Grandmaster. Anyway I had a try at standardizing our use of long form notation at WP:CHESSNOTATION. I have a strong preference for including an en-dash or hyphen (I don't actually know the difference). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:24, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I am in favor of using the dash when using in a pawn move, e.g. "d2-d4". This makes it clear to the reader that it is a pawn move.  "d2d4" is not so clear and even looks like a typo.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Why would WP:CHESS even have a convention for a notation system it doesn't use? I find that hard to believe.
 * Anyway, if your logic is that we should exclusively use short algebraic notation, then that means we shouldn't even include the en dashes, considering that they are not a part of the aforementioned system at all. But we do need to communicate to the reader that a two-square move happened, so we either rewrite the article to avoid the problem (which I'd rather not have happen) or just accept the limitations of short algebraic notation and embrace another system. And not one you made up on Wikipedia's behalf; you don't get to do that. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 06:34, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * WP:Chess, under "notation", says "Occasionally, long form algebraic notation (e.g. "Nc3–e4") may be used, for example to unambiguously indicate the move just played in a diagram caption. " I think this is one of those cases.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I made that change just recently as a result of this discussion. Treat it as a proposal, I am open to modifications. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Ndashes are not a part of long-form. My view is notation systems not be mixed in an article. Including a dash/hyphen effectively mixes notation systems within an article. An en dash in conjunction w/ short form can/is/should be interpreteted just as MOS:NDASH provides. --IHTS (talk) 10:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You s/ add to consideration too, not only disambiguation moves, but article expressions like "With 27.h4, White plans h5–h6–h7 followed by queening", and e.g. "White will relocate the knight with Nb3–d2–f3–e5 threatening Nxf7", etc. (Dashes/hyphens in those cases make no sense. Long-form is one way to disambiguate a move, not the only way, and has drawback of mixing notation systems in an article.) --IHTS (talk) 10:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) In add'n to Bubba's example, long-form is used in article that defines/explains long-form, so a decided-upon convention was/is necessary. 2) It's not my "logic" WP:CHESS uses short-form in 99.9% of WP:CHESS content, I was informing you that it does as matter of editing convention. And it doesn't follow that "that means we shouldn't even include the en dashes", no one asserts/asserted the en dashes are "part of the [short-form AN] system", only you. (You s/b thinking average WP reader, in context of 99.9% WP:CHESS content is in short-form, where en dashes are interpreted as meaning "to" per MOS:NDASH. Given average WP readers and that context, why w/ be interpreted any other way?! It wouldn't.) 3) Per (1) and (2), there's no basis for your claim/accuse that I have "made up [a notation system] on Wikipedia's behalf". (Have you even perused MOS:NDASH?!) I've asked you to stop being testy, now you've double-downed and worse. --IHTS (talk) 09:48, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * for me it's not about establishing "rules" or anything, just establishing WP:CHESS consensus. Obviously we already have a consensus to use short form English algebraic in most situations. But that doesn't mean we can't occasionally use other notation systems for specific purposes. The example I gave was using LAN to make the previous move clear in a diagram caption. This is entirely acceptable and uncontroversial to me. Given that, *if* you want to use long form, should you use hyphen, n-dash, or no punctuation at all? I'm leaning towards n-dash. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:01, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Am not attempting "establishing rules", rather following already existing WP:CHESS editing convention (short-form AN for articles) and MoS (MOS:NDASH). As mentioned, there is more than one way to disambiguate a move other than mixing notation systems, there is nothing wrong using en dash per MOS:NDASH so am confused why you apparently resist that. (It has advantage of not mixing notation systems within an article, as explained.) To answer your Q, within LAN, you don't want to use an en dash, hyphen/dash is needed. --IHTS (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC) 11:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where you get that from. I see very long dashes in old German chess literature (the only chess literature that commonly used LAN), e.g. . I'm not particularly concerned about dash length, but there should be some kind of dash in my opinion. And we don't have "rules", we ignore them if it improves the article. (You know that of course). MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I get that from FIDE specifications (or previous FIDE specifications, per ISaveNewspapers quote). (What do FIDE examples show? I'm guessing/assuming dash/hyphen, not en dash.) --IHTS (talk) 12:17, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You can't really go by what you find in books. (I know this after researching capture symbol, "x" vs. "×" etc, in several books. In the end all the variation just seemed to be by whim of the printer/die/font setter.) --IHTS (talk) 12:23, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * What about the general principle of "use SAN normally but use LAN if it's appropiate to the situation"? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * All depends if you accept mixing notation systems within an article. (I don't, methinks that's inherently confusing to readers. Whereas MOS:NDASH is reader-compatible.) --IHTS (talk) 12:53, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't seee "mixing notation systems" as an issue, long and short form are just variants of the same system and in some circumstances use of long form can make things clearer. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:58, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You don't see it as an issue, but an avg reader might be confused after reading re how short AN is used in WP acc the AN tag. Also I'm confused re your persistence on the topic, it only applies to a caption to a diag or in text to inform reader where a starting square was after any already completed move, which is like 0.01% of the time. Also didn't you prev express how you didn't fully grasp diff between dash & en dash? Also, you didn't respond how you'd express e.g. "27.h4 with intention h5–h6–h7" etc (dash or en dash?) in article where you want to mix notations. Last, methinks you shouldn't be arbitrarily claim "consensus" and create WP:CHESS conventions w/o a real consensus first. I've made my views clear and defended & explained them on this 0.01% topic, so won't be using any more my time/attention to respond to an apparently unending thread. --IHTS (talk) 22:38, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * How are we going to get a consensus if you take this attitude? You say writing "d7–d5" in a diagram caption is "mixing notations" and somehow confusing, I say it's just clarifying that the pawn came from d7 and not d6. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 00:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's the opposite what I wrote. In a diag caption or text, "...d7–d5" is not mixing notations, but "2...d7-d5" is. (The first uses en dash per MOS:NDASH, the second uses hyphen per long-form AN.) And it's potentially confusing, not "somehow confusing", because we tell readers short-form is used in articles, while mixing notations, which is unnecessary, contradicts that. You don't like misquoting but you misquoted me. You also don't like decisions cut from limited participation or premature end of discussion but you did that too. But as mentioned the series of Qs I've answered in good faith here has been excessive for a 0.01% editing convention issue. And that issue wasn't even the topic of the thread. --IHTS (talk) 03:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You're taking a combative approach when in reality we're not all that far apart, and a consensus shouldn't be all that difficult to achieve. "Mixing notations" isn't a big deal if it aids comprehension, which I think it does in certain circumstances. Your interpretation that LAN depends on the length of the dash is a little strange. Whether you use zero hyphen, standard hyphen, en-dash or em-dash or old school German long dash, it's still LAN. Which is just algebraic with a bit more information/disambiguation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to User:ISaveNewspapers for notifying WT:Chess about this. But, I have had to read a fair amount to get up to speed on this.

I see that WP:Chess specifically recommends short-form algebraic, so, one might think, that's that. (Footnote: I had never heard of such a thing as long-form algebraic until I started all this reading. Live and learn.)  But, someone who put together this article decided to use things like d7-d5, and it's been there for a while, what do we do? To conform with WP:Chess, we would change that back to just d5. But as a sometime writer of articles about chess, I would not be happy with that either. In the context of a scoresheet, "d5" is concise and unambiguous. But in the context of an English-language article, "d5" looks as much like the name of a square than like a chess move, so it is quite natural to write something like "d7-d5" or "d7d5" in some situations. So, perhaps WP:Chess should be enhanced to allow or suggest this.

So I like this additional possibility for pawn moves; but there is no need for it for knight moves, rook moves, etc. So I have no particular interest in what we are calling "long form". Apparently it has fallen into disuse anyway?

So then, which is better, d7-d5 or d7d5? FIDE appendix C.8 doesn't help with this. It is clearly only describing what we call short form, although it doesn't use the words "short form" (perhaps they were just as ignorant as I was about the existence of long form). In addition, at the beginning of appendix C it says FIDE "recognizes" only one notation, but only "recommends" that notation for literature; FIDE's authority only goes so far.

Very likely, sometime in the past, I have written an article using something like "d7-d5", and it seems natural to me, because when I started out in chess, the English-speaking world was still using Descriptive notation, which used dashes. But clearly "d7d5" is a plausible alternative method of solving the problem that "d5" is too concise; so if some editor prefers it for some reason, I would not reject it out of hand. I do not know of a standard that is applicable for this sort of thing (having ruled out the FIDE appendix, see previous paragraph).

Regarding hyphens versus n-dashes, I profess nearly complete ignorance. Bruce leverett (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2022 (UTC)


 * In the context of this English-language article, "d5" does not in fact look like just the name of a chess square, considering that it is preceded by a move number, clearly indicating that it is therefore a move. That is not the point here. The nature of the en passant capture requires the article to make clear that the pawn to be captured just advanced two squares in the preceding move, and that is why we must specify the square of origin. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with that. It is essential to say that the move was from d7 to d5 - not from d6 to d5, i.e. some version of d7-d5.  Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 21:46, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess nobody’s talking to each other anymore. Regardless, it seems pretty evident that User:Ihardlythinkso stands alone in his convictions, so I’m switching it to hyphens again. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:05, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Other editors said everything I might say so I didn't think my voice was needed. It is important in this article to clearly indicate the origin square of a pawn move, and to do this I strongly prefer using a hyphen or a dash such as d7-d5 or d7–d5 rather than d7d5.  I think most of the chess writing I've seen uses a hyphen or dash in these cases rather than the more terse d7d5 notation, and I think using a separator makes it easier to understand.  Concerning whether to use a hyphen or an en dash, I think either is fine.  In the context of using a long form notation to indicate a single move, I think I would use a hyphen since hyphens are already part of standard chess notation for castling.  (Also a dash makes the move notation very bulky and wide compared to other moves.)  In a different context using a similar-looking notation to indicate a series of moves (e.g., Nb1–d2–f1–g3), I think I would use a dash to make it clear that this is a multiple move maneuver and not a single move.  But I don't think the choice between a hyphen and a dash is very important for wikipedia in this instance, so I don't think I would change another editor's work to try to enforce my hyphen or dash preferences.  Quale (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Thx for posting. Agree w/ every one of your sentences. Like to point out have never advocated or even suggested dash for long-form (long-form AN s/b hyphen as earlier posted; descriptive notation is the same, hyphen is standard, P-K4). The deal is, up to the point of ISaveNewspapers' edits/insistence/reverts in this article, long-form is really not used in any other WP:CHESS article, save the AN article explaining/defining long-form. And for a piece maneuver e.g. Nb1–d2–f1–g3, ndash works not only visually, but because consistent w/ policy where MOS:NDASH means "to". (And I don't see how that doesn't work equally in this article re ...d7–d5 informing reader of starting square. Now we have an article that mixes notation systems, unnecessary and potentially a bit confusing, 'cause that's not what we've told readers, we've told them WP:CHESS articles use short-form AN.) Thx again for your post. --IHTS (talk) 15:39, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Repeated Sentence
"The en passant capture is the only capture in chess where the capturing piece does not replace the captured piece on its square." The sentence is stated in the first section and repeated in the Rules section. Is the notion so important that it warrants repetition? I think the novelty of the statement is sufficiently covered as a footnote of the Rules section only. SquashEngineer (talk) 16:57, 11 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it's a significant enough fact. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 18:24, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * MOS:LEAD gives guidelines as to what should be in the lead paragraph, and what should be saved for the main body of an article. I admit, I have trouble applying the same guidelines to an article about en passant as to, for instance, a biography of Bobby Fischer.
 * There are several possible reasons for making a statement in the lead paragraphs: (1) it may serve to summarize one or more statements in the main body; (2) it may serve to entice readers to read the rest of the article; (3) it may be so essential, that even those who read only the lead paragraphs must see it. (The general observation is that many readers of an article only read the lead paragraphs.)
 * I am not sure that the statement about the capturing pawn not moving to the captured pawn's square satisfies any of these three criteria; but there seems to be room for disagreement. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:27, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Intention
We are (as I write this) saying, "The en passant capture was introduced in the 15th century along with the pawn's two-square move, intending to prevent a pawn from evading capture by skipping a square attacked by an enemy pawn." The previous version used "in order" instead of "intending", which has the same problem. The problem is that we don't know the intentions of the people who introduced the new rule. Our cited source, Davidson, doesn't talk about intentions (assuming my attempt to use Google Books search to find this passage was successful). As a rule, to say why some rule was introduced to some game, you need a primary source (i.e. unless the person who introduced the rule said why, you're just guessing). It is true, as pointed out by Davidson, that the rule prevents a pawn from skipping past a guardian pawn on the next file; but we should not be casually making claims about the intentions of those unnamed and long-forgotten Italians and Spaniards.

Also, we say in the intro that en passant was introduced in the 15th century, but we say in the History section that it was introduced between the 13th and 16th centuries. Bruce leverett (talk) 01:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I think it started at different times, depending on the geographical area. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 03:20, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, it started at a single time and then spread to various areas at various times. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Looking at the article history, the sentence where we say "between the 13th and 16th centuries" has changed several times since the article was created, but the cited source was always the same: Davidson's book. Davidson says, "Chess as played in Europe in 1200 was indistinguishable from the Arabic game. European chess in 1600, on the other hand, would seem acceptable in any modern club."  He goes on to list the rule changes that led to modern chess, including the changes in the moves of the queen and bishop, the two-square pawn move and en passant, and changes regarding checkmate and stalemate.  He is really, here, a tertiary source, and we are citing him only because it's easy, and he's not writing about difficult historical questions or complicated issues.
 * Searching in Murray for references to en passant or "in passing", I didn't see any attempt to estimate a date for the introduction of this rule. Murray tried to pin down the date of the "mad queen" changes to the last quarter of the 15th century, but not so the rules about the two-square pawn move and en passant capturing, perhaps because those changes were not so epochal.  So perhaps I should tweak the article to make it clear that en passant was a "modern" (or perhaps "medieval") introduction to the game, but to avoid giving the impression that we have reliable dates for it. Bruce leverett (talk) 19:56, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't use wording like that: "modern" is mega-vague, and "medieval" refers to a time period that started before the invention of chaturanga. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Note Sarratt (1808), page 5, section 15. "'A Pawn that is pushed two steps may be taken “en passant”, by the adversary’s Pawn. N.B. This is not the case in Italy; a Pawn is allowed to pass 'en prise'; and that is called 'passar battaglia'.'". The earliest reference to "en passant" Winter found was from 1767. . So not only do we have no clear date of introduction, it was also much later that the rule became standard. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:18, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Another relevant link (by John McCrary); he says the passar battaglia rule was also present in Germany. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2022 (UTC) This article definitely needs to mention and document the Italian passar battaglia rule. My preliminary impression is that Lopez etc advocated for en passant and this became the norm in Spain, France and England; in Italy and to some extent Germany they had passar battaglia. See also this article by CC player Eric Ruch. According to most sources it was abandoned along with free castling in the late 19th century. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * This is interesting: in the article by John McCrary, he states that en passant was already around by 1200.  Although the article doesn't cite primary sources, I suspect that he is using them, and perhaps he has written something that we could use as a secondary source. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:33, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * McCrary tends to write easily digestible pop histories, he isn't meticulous with his sources like Winter. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To repeat Bruce's question, do we have any WP:RS other than Davidson that states that the intent of en passant is to prevent a pawn moving two squares on the initial move from evading capture? I never really thought about sourcing this statement because it seems obvious and self evident, but that's irrelevant here.  I don't have Davidson, but I assumed that I could easily find a source for this claim in some of the books I have such as Murray.  I was wrong at least about the easily part since I haven't yet found a source supporting this claim. Quale (talk) 05:00, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I checked Davidson, and it is indeed there. I checked some chess encyclopedias but it wasn't in there.  I have at least two other books on the history of chess, but I haven't checked them yet.  But isn't the Davidson reference sufficient? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 06:43, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I am distinguishing between the effect of en passant, and the purpose of introducing en passant. I see that Davidson says, "the en passant rule made it impossible to abuse this double-move privilege to escape capture of [a] pawn".  Everybody else says that, too (and it's obvious enough).  But what is the purpose of a rule?  What is the purpose of the bishop having diagonal moves, or of the knight having scroojy-doojy knight moves?  What is the purpose of the initial setup of the pieces, or the "White square on right corner" rule?  Game rules don't have to have a purpose; they are just rules.  Bruce leverett (talk) 13:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Rules that break the normal pattern such as castling and en passant captures generally have some "purpose" or rationale behind them. Can we find a quote from an early chess writer such as Ruy Lopez advocating the en passant rule? Probably didn't use that literal phrase. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 16:07, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, from The Oxford History of Board Games (Parlett, 1999), p. 305: "The pawn's initial two-step, an obvious way of advancing engagement, appears in the Alfonso manuscript of 1283 and in the Spanish, Lombard, German and Anglo-French assizes, though with variations. In some cases the privilege was restricted to rook, queen, and king pawns, in others it ceased once a capture had been made. Capture en passant can be inferred from problems composed in accordance with the Anglo-French assize, which goes back to 1150." --IHTS (talk) 03:59, 22 November 2022 (UTC)


 * That's good information and should be in the article. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 04:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Great (assuming consensus)! But since am not a history buff, am not confident re paraphrasing & inserting & etc. (Perhaps is up to it?)  Here's the book data:    Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

The "Italian rules" statement
On the "Italian rules" statement, what is "universally accepted" meant to imply? It can't be that every single person on Earth collectively agreed on it. The phrase "the Italian rules were changed" seems to suggest that Italy had an authoritative governing organization on chess, so maybe this is about universal acceptance among chess organizations, but even then, I find it hard to believe that there weren't any factions of chess players who were adamantly opposed to the existence of the en passant capture. Most likely, it refers to universal acceptance among "major" chess organizations, but what is the standard here? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 19:22, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * You or others can try to research this more deeply if you like, but Hooper & Whyld simply say "finally disappearing in 1880 when the Italians revised their laws". I suspect that there were established Italian chess organizations at that time and that they set laws of play.  Italian Chess Championship lists national tournaments starting in 1875 and these competitions must have had rules of play and an organizing body.  Quale (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * There was no national Italian chess federation until 1920. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:01, 26 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That is not correct. The FSI was formed in 1920, and in 1924 it was one of the founders of FIDE.  But the FSI was not the first national Italian chess federation.  According to Federazione Scacchistica Italiana, the first Italian chess association formed in 1892.  It also mentions a national chess congress in 1878. Quale (talk) 02:09, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Italy has a complicated political history, it didn't become a country until 1861 and even today San Marino is nominally an independent city-state. But the point is non-observance of en passant was more a matter of tradition than any formal rule set laid out by a national federation. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Of course, there are players everywhere who don't use en passant. Beginners will frequently ask about things like this:  "Do you play en passant?"  "Do you play castling?"  So relative to the general chess-playing population, "universally accepted" is an overstatement.  But relative to organized chess, i.e. tournaments and the like, "universally accepted" is correct.  I am pretty sure that sources like Hooper & Whyld and McCrary are referring to organized chess, and we can follow their lead.  Bruce leverett (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Joseph Henry Blackburne never liked e.p.. Double sharp (talk) 12:44, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez book in English
A translation was published by Catholic University in Washington DC, translated by Michael McGrath with a foreword by Andrew Soltis in 2020. I don't really want to buy the book just for a wikipedia citation, and the nearest library to me that has the book is 100km (60 miles) away. Does anyone live a little closer to a library that has it? Basically I'm interested in references to the en passant rule in the book, which are among the earliest in chess literature. Likely references are in book 1 chapter 15, book 2 chapter 14, book 3 chapter 7 and book 4 chapter 5. I don't know if it's mentioned in Damiano or Lucena. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 12:06, 2 September 2022 (UTC)