If the position could have been reached by another move, the key cannot be an en passant capture.Īs noted in my article, some 19th-century writers questioned why pieces can pass other pieces and pawns, and pawns can pass pieces, without needing an en passant rule but only the situation of pawns passing pawns needed a special rule. Today’s modern convention of composed positions, however, does allow an en passant capture as the key move – only if the position could not have been legally reached by a move other than the double-jump that made the en passant legal. The contest rules stated This device, however, shall under no circumstances enhance the value of a problem. One composing contest in 1883 allowed an en passant capture as the key move, but only if the position could not have been reached by any hypothetical game in which the capture was illegal. Some problem-composing contests simply prohibited having an en passant as the key move. If en passant was a "privilege," meaning it could be refused as some argued in the 19th century, this game would be drawn by stalemate!īy definition, a composed position has no preceding moves, so having an en passant capture as the first move of a solution became an issue, when it couldn't be known if the preceding move was a double-jump of a pawn. But only in recent decades the rule was clarified to state that, in a triple-occurrence draw claim, a position is not a repetition of an earlier position, if an en passant capture was possible in that first position. Some questioned why it applied only to pawns: After all, pawns pass pieces, and pieces pass each other with impunity - so why couldn't pawns? Curiously, some printed rules failed to specify that it was limited to the immediate reply, though the idea was expressed clearly by some, showing it was presumably understood. Lastly, en passant is the only move that can give double-check without the moving piece delivering one of the checks.īefore the modern rule became universal in the mid-1800s, debates occurred about its proper form in those regions where en passant captures were allowed. Thus, some combinations that rely on an "in-between" move may not work when an en passant capture is involved. Additionally, it's the only move possible for just one turn, after which it becomes impossible. For starters, it's the only way a pawn can attack an opposing pawn, without having a reciprocating attack possible for that opposing pawn. f5.Ĭapturing en passant brought with it some unique features. Without the en passant rule in early 19th century Italy, opening theory was much different after 3. f5 without the threat of immediate capture. The rule difference had its effect on opening theory for example, in Italy after 1. The move was present in England and its surrounding regions, while capturing en passant was not allowed in Italy and Germany. In his book The Famous Game of Chesse-Play in 1614, Arthur Saul wrote that a pawn had to have the "leave" of the enemy king to pass, without clarifying what was meant by such "leave.”īy the early 19th century, two variants existed that either allowed, or disallowed, the en passant capture. Some regions simply did not allow the two-square move at all, if it meant passing an opposing pawn others would not allow the move while defending a check. The point of contention was if a pawn could use this two-square move to bypass the control of an opposing pawn, and various local rules resulted over the centuries. As early as 1200 A.D., pawns have been able to move forward two squares forward on their initial move.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |