08 Nov '07 17:11>
A black mark to anyone who thought this post was about how an opponent must be cheating, or the site faulty, because a pawn moved to an empty square and still managed to take my pawn. It is, however, still about the en passant capture.
As has often been pointed out here, the en passant capture was introduced in conjunction with the (then) new rule giving pawns the chance to move two squares on their first move. This was so the pawn couldn't skip past a square where it would formerly have been open to capture. My question is, why is it only an opposing pawn which is allowed to capture en passant? Surely a pawn moving two squares instead of one could be seen as, potentially, avoiding capture by any enemy piece. Why wasn't a bishop allowed to capture en passant? Or a knight? Or even a king?
As has often been pointed out here, the en passant capture was introduced in conjunction with the (then) new rule giving pawns the chance to move two squares on their first move. This was so the pawn couldn't skip past a square where it would formerly have been open to capture. My question is, why is it only an opposing pawn which is allowed to capture en passant? Surely a pawn moving two squares instead of one could be seen as, potentially, avoiding capture by any enemy piece. Why wasn't a bishop allowed to capture en passant? Or a knight? Or even a king?