Talk:En passant

What exactly was the sequence of rule changes?

So I had always been under the impression that the pawn’s two-square move and the en passant capture were introduced at the same time, as that was what I had been told all this time. It made sense to me that whoever came up with the pawn’s two-square move would have spotted the problem quickly afterwards or at least while testing the new rule out first before implementing it into their actual games. However, I have now been informed that there is no conclusive evidence that this is the case. On the other hand, I have not been informed that there is conclusive evidence that it isn’t the case, which is a different thing entirely. If such evidence does exist, I would like to see it; if not, then maybe the article’s claims shouldn’t be so confident. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 00:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The Oxford Companion to Chess gives some information: "The en passant rule dates from the 15th century, although it has been universally excepted only since 1880, when Italian players abandoned the passar battaglia rule." That doesn't give enough information. The "passar battaglia" meant that en passant was not the rule. The entry says "The option of advancing the pawn two squares forward on its first move was probably a 13th-century innovation. Even after the en passant rule was introduced, probably in the 15th century, there were some curious exceptions: both Damino and Ruy Lopez state that such a capture cannot be made if it brought about a discovered check. The passar battaglia law survived in several parts of Europe for a long time, finally disappearing in 1880 when the Italians revised their laws." Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:30, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess one can't expect to know too much about what specific rule changes happened many centuries ago. But I do personally find the proposed possible sequence of events unlikely to be true. I mean, does this book mean to tell me that the first rule was invented in the 13th century, and then the entire 14th century passed, and then only in the 15th century did someone say, "Hey, remember wayyyyy back in the day when a pawn couldn't just skip past an enemy pawn’s attack zone to evade capture? We should totally bring that back!"? Although I guess it's possible that "wayyyyy back in the day" could have actually been "a short while ago," since the pawn double-step rule might have taken time to spread to that particular person. Oh well, I'm not the historian here. Overall, though, what I gather is that there's still uncertainty about this rule's history. I suppose the article should be edited, then. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 03:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it might have taken a while for the two-square move to come into effect in different places. Things moved a lot slower then. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

There's a tremendous amount of detail in A History of Chess (H.J.R. Murray), of course. --IHTS (talk) 01:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

What does it say? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 03:26, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have Murray's book, but it must be packed away in a box. A Short History of Chess by Henry Davidson says "the pawn was given the privilege of moving two squares on his first move - and with this came en passant." (pg.14) "At the same time, the en passant rule made it impossible for this double-move privilege to escape capture of pawn." (pg. 16). And "The en passant rule followed immediately and inevitably with the introduction of the double initial move." (pg. 57) So it isn't totally clear. My guess is that when the double move was started in an area, e.p. usually (but not always) came with it. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:27, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

P.S. - Davidson is not considered to be as accurate as Murray. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 07:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have the h/c, not a history buff, w/ take me a month to understand, let alone summarize, w/ any confidence. Here is a partial (European only) from the index on p. 898:

• Pawn (chessman):
  Double step, European introduction, 457; limitations, 458-9, 462, 464, 788, 851-2, 857.
  Taking in passing: European chess, 461, 462, 465, 785, 788, 812, 833, 852.

Here you go, click on the pages to go back & forth. Happy reading! ;) --IHTS (talk) 07:13, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

It is unknown whether these two rules were introduced at the same time. is a statement of fact, so it needs a citation. --IHTS (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

You know, I think I'll just rewrite. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

En passant definitely looks like an afterthought to me. People were getting bored because the game took too long to get going until someone came up with the idea of advancing the pawn two squares. Great, faster game, this is cool. But then there was the unintended consequence - pawns could now evade capture by advancing two squares. So my intuitive original research is that the en passant capture was introduced some time after the two square move. Might not have taken 200 years, but it certainly wouldn't have been simultaneous. There's also the strange fact that only a pawn can capture en passant... why can't other pieces capture on the passed over square? I doubt very much that en passant was introduced simultaneously. It looks like an add-on, a bug fix. And if anyone has access to the English translation of the Lopez book, or can read 16th century Spanish, please check them per previous section. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:07, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

It's not impossible that the person who invented and tested the pawn's two-square move would have thought, "Hey, I don’t want a pawn to be able to evade an opposing pawn’s attack." Clearly someone thought that at some point, and it could've been that person. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:08, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

All I know is there are no references to it prior to Lopez in 1524, so we have no basis whatsoever to assert that it was introduced simultaneously. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:36, 27 September 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) 04:03, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Pronunciation and translation placement

I prefer to have the pronunciation and translation of "en passant" in a note. This article already has the potential to be super confusing; I want the first paragraph to read continuously so the reader isn't distracted. Also, I don't understand the purpose of locating the pronunciation and translation in a separate place from the term itself; it seems rather strange. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 20:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

The "strange" placement was made necessary as attempt to adjust to *your* edit that changed lede sentence starting "En passant [...]" to starting "The en passant capture [...]", and *your* insistence to change all occurrences of "en passant" to "the [or an] en passant capture" in every WP:CHESS article you find it, when those extra words are implicit. I don't think the novel placement of the foreign parenthetical will throw any reader.

As far as a note being better, I find the superscript distracting and odd and confusing and unnecessary, and that the parenthetical is therefore the better option for "continuous reading" objective we share; and, can you point to even one example on WP where the foreign info is footnoted rather than in the lede sentence? (I couldn't find any, not one.) --IHTS (talk) 21:18, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

See also MOS:LEADLANG for examples. --IHTS (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, since you change "en passant" to "the [or an] en passant capture" everywhere you find it, am wondering how you can "live with" the title of this article as is, and have not already moved it to: En passant capture or En passant capture (chess) or En passant capture in chess consistent w/ your editing? Might I suggest a return to the original lede sentence structure beginning "En Passant", as follows:

En passant (French: [ɑ̃ paˈsɑ̃], lit. "in passing") describes a capture move in chess. It occurs when [...]

 Done --IHTS (talk) 22:30, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Here's the deal ... Here is the edit (by ISaveNewspapers, back in April) that changed the use of en passant in the lede sentence as a noun ("En passant is a capture", also previously "En passant is a move") to an adjective ("The en passant capture is a move"): [1]. Since then if I'm not mistaken ISaveNewspapers has been changing occurrences of "En passant" being used as a subject noun, to "The en passant capture" or "An en passant capture", using it as an adjective modifier, all over creation. *My* change yesterday from "The en passant capture" to "En passant describes a capture move" was an effort to put the word first again so the foreign term parenthetical could immediately follow rather than the alternatives of sandwiching it between words "en passant" and "capture", or placing it at the end of phrase "en passant capture", which ISaveNewspapers has objected to in this thread, while appeasing her preference to retain use of en passant as an adjective. (I can't read ISaveNewspapers' mind, perhaps she saw en passant as adjective based on the translation "in passing", which is adjective or adverb modifier, and that explains all her other edits to en passant phrases too, and, I've always thought she is probably technically correct about that.) But today Quale has changed again to use as noun ("En passant is a special move"), which sits fine with me because in normal usage in chess, yeah, en passant is typically or traditionally often used as a noun, even ISaveNewspaper's magnifier on that usage as incorrect is probably technically true. So it seems (correct me if am wrong), the issue is between common but technically incorrect usage, versus technically correct grammatical usage. (I side w/ Quale on this. What say you, ISaveNewspapers?) --IHTS (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm genuinely totally fine with changing it back. I don't care one way or the other, I just participate in Wikipedia for fun, and I understand it really makes zero difference in terms of information conveyed to the reader. I would've stopped making the change a long time ago if I knew there were objections to these edits specifically. If you think changing it back is best for the article, do it. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 19:27, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Already changed back by Quale's edit today.

Re recreational ("for fun") editing, you were quite adamant in the discussion above re using long-form algebraic (5...d7-d5 w/ hyphen) when expressing double-step moves, as opposed to using standard/short-form algebraic, the default in all WP:CHESS articles to-date (5...d7–d5 w/ dash per MOS:NDASH). I preferred using a single notation system for consistency & reader expectations, while you favored mixing it up. You held your ground, as you presumably still do, so who knew? --IHTS (talk) 20:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Me too -- I am only in it for fun, but that doesn't stop me from being opinionated to the max, as other chess editors are aware. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:04, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Me three, as methinks most or all others are. But ISaveNewspapers tied together editing "for fun" & "I don't care one way or the other", which s/ contextualize my response better. --IHTS (talk) 02:43, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

There's a law of gamesmanship: "It's no fun to play for fun." WHPratt (talk) 05:21, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

English pronunciation

Actually, I think it might make sense to provide an English-language pronunciation as well, to reflect what approximations are used by chessplayers who don't speak French. There's some given at the Cambridge dictionary. Kwamikagami? Double sharp (talk) 14:23, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Most English speakers say some approximation like "on passont", fully aware that it's not the actual French pronunciation, but I don't think we need to include that in the article. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 14:59, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

One of the problems with foreign words in English dictionaries is figuring out whether the dict gives an actual English pronunciation or just an approximation of the French. But dict.com has both:

/ˌɑn pæˈsɑnt/; French /ɑ̃ pɑˈsɑ̃/.

Cambridge is also clear, as it distinguishes UK /ˌɒ̃ ˈpæs.ɒ̃/ from US /ˌɑ̃ː pæsˈɑ̃ː/. However, the sound files it gives for both UK and US are /ˌɒ̃ pæˈsɒ̃/.

Merriam-Webster gives an alt've schwa, suggesting that's also an English assimilation: \ˌäⁿ-ˌpä-ˈsäⁿ, ˌäⁿ-pə-ˈsäⁿ\, where \ä\ is IPA the PALM vowel /ɑ/.

As for whether we should include one or more of those, the disagreement between sources could make it rather messy. We should at least have something at WK, though. — kwami (talk) 18:41, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

The variation leans me towards supporting MaxBrowne2's opinion for Wikipedia. But I agree with improving the Wiktionary entry. Double sharp (talk) 08:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

"special"

Isn't it subjective to describe this move as "special"? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 22:51, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Technically agree, but Quale's use of the word is justified & useful, IMO. (Justfied in that, as described in article, the only capture move finishing on an empty square; also special as only move w/ optional e.p. notation appendage. Useful in that the word solicits reader's attention for improved comprehension in what follows: explanation of a "weird" move, especially for beginners, often misunderstood. Castling is also a special move, but "special" probably isn't as warranted in that article since readers/beginners are probably at least more familiar w/ castling than w/ e.p.) For one succinct word, it packs alot of punch, IMO. --IHTS (talk) 23:23, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

I thought about whether the description of en passant as a special move was warranted, but the text I changed was awful and urgently needed to be replaced. If you Google "en passant" you will find the "special" description is not uncommon online. But I checked The Oxford Companion to Chess to make sure: "en passant, a special method of capturing....". Quale (talk) 03:05, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Since en passant translates to "in passing", which of the following sentence structures is correct/makes sense?: "In passing is a special method of capturing ..." or "In passing is a special move ...". (Answer: the first one. But I still prefer the latter.) --IHTS (talk) 03:44, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

You know, I like that first one. I had never thought about it that way. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 21:46, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, the phrase "in passing" is undoubtedly an adverb or adjective modifier (and how I coughed up "En passant describes ..." that gave Quale a cow), so w/ be warm to changing current lede sentence to:

"En passant (French: [ɑ̃ paˈsɑ̃], lit. "in passing") is a special method of capturing in chess that occurs when a pawn captures a horizontally adjacent enemy pawn ...".

Am also warm to the current "En passant is a special move in chess that occurs ...", even if less correct, since it has the virtue of stopping any potential confusion immediately. --IHTS (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

This finally prompted me to google "en passant special", and I see just about everything, including "special way that pawns capture pawns", "special type of pawn capture", "special pawn capture", "special moves", and whatever. I do not object to anything you've proposed so far. Bruce leverett (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

• Can't say I'm very keen on the current wording "special". ("Special" makes me think of disabled people etc). It's just a rule, even if it's not commonly known by non-competitive players. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:32, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I find Hooper and Whyld's opinion on this point (a WP:RS to be more compelling than yours. Quale (talk) 02:05, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Good source, but sometimes eccentric. "Special" is getting into MOS:WTW territory. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  The context of "special" in this case is: a different way of capturing from all the other chess piece types, which w/ be an aid to readers learning chess from the WP articles, thus an argument for retaining the word. p.s. Your own personal word association methinks is ... not linguistically prevalent!? I.e. "special sauce" and millions more common everyday examples. The word is even used in the text for MOS:WTW. It is also used in WP sidebars ("Special pages"), etc. etc. --IHTS (talk) 02:25, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  E.p. is "not a method"?!? OCC, p. 124: "en passant, a special method of capturing, [...]" --IHTS (talk) 02:35, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to me that "special" is optional here. When I am explaining E.P. to a novice, do I say that it is a "special" move? Not normally. I don't need to, why waste time and breath?

  Moreover, why do we single this out for being "special"? Knight moves are "special" for well-known reasons. Promotion is "special". Pawn captures are "special", or maybe it's the non-captures that are "special". Backward moves by non-pawns are "special".Check, checkmate, and stalemate are "special". And so on.

  I do not claim that there is a mismatch between the meaning (if any) of "special" and what we are trying to say here; it just seems superfluous. Yes, Hooper and Whyld use it, but that is not tempting me. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:06, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  Why do we single this out for being "special"? The word in the OCC & WP sentences modifies "capturing method", and is justified in that capturing on a square where the captured piece is not, is a unique capturing method to all other pieces. Expanding the application of the word beyond that it's a modifier of phrase "capturing method" isn't a fair or logical comparison/argument. (Else we'd draw wild conclusions as you did, e.g. that the lede sentence in article Chess should say "a special board game", etc.) --IHTS (talk) 04:54, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I tried Golombek's Penguin Encyclopedia of Chess but his definition is disappointingly vague. "The capture of a pawn by an enemy pawn when the latter has advanced two squares initially". This definition would include e4xd5. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:51, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

  I am not sure that "horizontally adjacent" helps much. Aren't e4 and d5 horizontally adjacent to each other?

  Even with the older text (before "special" and "method" were removed), we weren't conveying the essence of the problem very well in the first sentence. "Special" and "method" give the reader an idea that something is in the wind, but they don't have enough semantics to really help. I suppose that it is adequate that we are "only" taking two sentences, but I wonder if there is a way to do more of the work in the first sentence. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  Methinks that w/ be attempting to pack too much into one sentence. The orig first sentence sets stage by defining "when"; the second sentence explains "how". Can't see doing better than that w/o a tangly over-long sentence causing hard-to-read confusion. --IHTS (talk) 12:24, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm coming to this discussion rather late, but I'd say that the first sentence is okay, although I think that "horizontally adjacent" doesn't add any clarity, so I'd lose that.WHPratt (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  Which sentence is okay? (Orig w/ "special method"? Or after that phrase was removed?) --IHTS (talk) 18:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  I was looking at: "In chess, En passant (French: [ɑ̃ paˈsɑ̃], lit. "in passing") describes a capture of a horizontally adjacent enemy pawn that has just made an initial two-square advance." I don't think that "horizontally adjacent" adds anything. We could specify that the target pawn must be on an "adjacent file" or "neighboring file," but that should be implicit from the standard pawn capturing rules. WHPratt (talk) 22:25, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

  I'm in this thread-part defending the orig lede sentence containing phrase "special method of capturing" before Max ditched it and opened this thread-part. So your post s/b to attn of Max and/or Bruce. --IHTS (talk) 00:38, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  Probably a concept that cannot be put in one sentence, so it's best to just take a shot and as 'em to stay tuned if interested! As many have said, it's best absorbed if introduced via the historical context. WHPratt (talk) 16:01, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  What about a really brief first sentence, leading up to the details? See below. WHPratt (talk) 14:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

In chess, En passant (French: [ɑ̃ paˈsɑ̃], lit. "in passing") refers to a situational extension of a pawn’s standard capturing method. It permits the capture of an enemy pawn that has just made an initial two-square advance.[2][3] The capturing pawn moves to the square that the enemy pawn had passed over, capturing it as if the enemy pawn had advanced only one square. The rule ensures that a pawn cannot use its two-square move to safely skip past an enemy pawn.

Abbreviation

Hooper & Whyld (1996) uses "ep" not "e.p.". (Am no linguist, seems the periods don't make sense, but have seen it lots.) Will chg to "ep" everywhere found unless consensus says not!? Cheers, --IHTS (talk) 22:10, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You don't see either "ep" or "e.p." much in game scores. I am not sure that either one is more correct than the other. Changing one to the other when you come across it doesn't sound like a way to improve things. But if we are being inconsistent in a noticeable way, such as inconsistent within an article, that would be worth fixing. Bruce leverett (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

FIDE Laws of Chess Appendix C specifies "e.p.", so looks like both are correct. ("ep" seems cleaner & more in tune w/ shortening of notation per notation evolution history, and methinks we s/ use it, but oh well. ) --IHTS (talk) 22:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah of course it's rarely used, but not dead yet so needs mention. Dropping the periods per H&W was smart, putting another bullet in it. ;) --IHTS (talk) 22:47, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Understanding

I always understood this move as, "You're capturing the enemy pawn while it's in the middle of its two-square move." Personally, I find that the most intuitive way to think about it. Do you think adding something like that into the article might make it easier for readers to wrap their heads around this move? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Also, I'm pretty sure that's just what the name of the move means. "In passing" as in "while the pawn being captured is passing through." ISaveNewspapers (talk) 02:49, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Cool expression, even tho haven't heard it before. IMO, w/ be redundant to "as if it had moved only one square", and, perhaps best to cement one expression in readers' minds (not two). --IHTS (talk) 12:13, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't have to have both. It's possible to just replace the current one. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 02:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

My vote w/ be no on that, seeing that "as if it had moved only one square" is widely used in basic lit, as well as in OCC. --IHTS (talk) 05:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree. If conceiving it as "capturing in the middle of the 2 square move" works for you then knock yourself out, I'm not going to judge. But chess is very much a turn-based game. Player A makes a move, Player B makes a reply. So retain current wording. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 08:37, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I admit, it is strange to think of one side making a move while the other side is in the middle of making their move. But I find the commonly-seen alternative even stranger: you imagine the alternate-universe version of the enemy pawn that was moved only one square, and then you capture that. All this being said, we should keep in mind that the en passant capture is just a strange move in general. I think we are all able to agree on that.

Obviously, chess is very abstract, and a lot of weird stuff can happen besides this move; so maybe we can just accept that when a pawn is capturing en passant, it's literally just making an enemy pawn magically disappear somehow. But that has the potential to leave people wondering why that's the case. They might not understand how that relates to the actual name of the move, or how it relates to the rationale that led to the move being invented in the first place. Because even with the abstractness of chess, it still has its own internal logic. One of its basic concepts is: "If your piece moves to an enemy piece's location, the enemy piece is captured." Perhaps it would be useful to explain the en passant capture as an extension of that concept, rather than simply isolating it.

Of course, in order to definitively determine what description truly works best, we would need to experiment with real newcomers, which would be difficult. It is worth considering that, as noted previously, chess writers generally prefer "capture the enemy pawn as if it had been moved only one square"; however, this does not necessarily mean that it is the best way, only that it is good enough to work. Perhaps it really is best, but as I said, this is difficult to confirm or disprove. All we can do is make educated guesses, and that is what I have done.

This is my reasoning. If you have any thoughts on what I have said, I will hear you out. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 08:43, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

You haven't really proposed an alternative wording yet. MaxBrowne2 above sort of did, but if this is going to be a real argument, we need to have two versions of the paragraph to look at, and one of them has to be yours. You can either propose something in this talk page, or by putting it in the article itself; since the discussion is already started here, might as well continue here, I suppose.

I might add that I am skeptical so far. Arguments like "But that has the potential to leave people wondering why that's the case" and "chess writers generally prefer XXX; however, this does not necessarily mean that it is the best way" don't get me interested in making a change. But this is Wikipedia, and if you come up with a phrasing that you like, and none of us boffins really dislikes it, you may get to use it. Bruce leverett (talk) 04:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

Here is my proposed alternate first paragraph:

En passant (French: [ɑ̃ paˈsɑ̃], lit. "in passing") is a special method of capturing in chess that occurs when a pawn captures a horizontally adjacent enemy pawn that has just made an initial two-square advance. The capturing pawn moves to the square that the enemy pawn passed over, as if the enemy pawn was captured in the middle of its two-square move. The rule ensures that a pawn cannot use its two-square move to safely skip past an enemy pawn.

I only included the part about chess writers because someone else mentioned it earlier and I wanted to address that person's concerns. If they hadn't said anything about it, I wouldn't have said anything about it. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 02:25, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have any objection to this. Would it improve the grammar to say, "... as if the enemy pawn were captured ..." ? According to this grammarian (and presumably others, I remember this from my childhood), "were" is correct here, but perhaps it looks awkward to some readers. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It's called the subjunctive mood or conditional mood. "If I was you" immediately brings to mind a Cockney English speaker to me. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 07:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. I will make the edit now. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 09:15, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not actually convinced this is an improvement at all. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 11:10, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

It isn't an improvement. It's completely unnecessary and worse. Do we have a WP:RS that describes en passant in that confusing way ("capturing in the middle of a move")? I just checked "Mammoth Book of Chess" (Burgess) and "Lasker's Manual of Chess" (Em. Lasker) and they both use the sane description that the pawn can be captured as if it had moved only one square. Quale (talk) 15:27, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Assiac, 1951

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to play

I don't like this proposed rewording, because it can lead to the misunderstanding that the enemy pawn never finished its move. It is well-described by the problem to the right. White plays 1.Bg2+, black responds 1...d5#, and White plays 2.cxd6 e.p.+! Black objects that this is illegal (it doesn't get White out of check), to which White responds that Black's d-pawn was cut down by en passant before it got to d5 and so never blocked White's check. I think the counterfactual framing is really needed to make it clear that, no, the Black pawn really made it to d5, and White is checkmated. Double sharp (talk) 09:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Giving check just means that if it were your turn, you could make a move that captures the enemy king. The problem is you can't play cxd6 and Bxb7 at once, so it's not really check. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 10:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

En passant rights interacting with threefolds

Diagram 1

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

White to play

The statement given in the article appears to be unclear on a certain kind of technicality. Suppose the game proceeds in Diagram 1 1.e4+ Kg6 2.Kf3 Kh5 3.Kg2+ Kg6 4.Kf3 Kh5 5.Kg2+. Is this a threefold or not? Theoretically the right to capture e.p. existed as a "pseudo-legal" move after 1.e4+, in the sense that an enemy pawn just moved two squares forward; but it could never really be exercised because 1...fxe3 e.p. wouldn't have gotten Black out of check.

Diagram 2

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

Black to play (neither white king nor white rook has moved)

Bewilderingly, the FIDE laws of chess seem to be self-contradictory here (Article 9.2). It writes that Positions as in (a) and (b) are considered the same, if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares, and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. That means that this is a threefold, because Black's legal moves after 1.e4+, 3.Kg2+, and 5.Kg2+ are the same. On the other hand it is then written When a king or a rook is forced to move, it will lose its castling rights, if any, only after it is moved. This is despite the fact that the legal moves in question would be the same, if you have such a metaphysical castling right that could never be exercised. So in Diagram 2, 1...Bg3+ 2.Kf1 Bf4 3.Ke1 Bg3+ 4.Kf1 Bf4 5.Ke1 Bg3+ is not a threefold, because White's castling right was only lost after 2.Kf1! This is confirmed by Geurt Gijssen. I would guess that there are no metaphysical en passant rights (on the basis of them not being mentioned), but it hardly seems clear. (And what about if we added a wNg1 to Diagram 2 and play 1...Be3 2.Kf1 Bf4 3.Ke1 Be3 4.Kf1 Bf4 5.Ke1 Be3? Then the king was not forced to move, but castling was never a legal move to begin with, only a theoretical future possibility that 2.Kf1 ruled out!) Double sharp (talk) 12:31, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

That wording is from an outdated edition of the FIDE Laws of Chess. The relevant articles in the current edition are as follows:

9.2.2 Positions are considered the same if and only if the same player has the move, pieces of the same kind and colour occupy the same squares and the possible moves of all the pieces of both players are the same. Thus positions are not the same if:

9.2.2.1 at the start of the sequence a pawn could have been captured en passant

9.2.2.2 a king had castling rights with a rook that has not been moved, but forfeited these after moving. The castling rights are lost only after the king or rook is moved.

Yeah, it's still a mess. But their intentions seem pretty clear. ISaveNewspapers (talk) 02:46, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, this clarifies en passant. In Diagram 1, 1...fxe3 e.p. was impossible, so the positions are the same.

It is still a mess for castling, but that's not a problem for this article. Double sharp (talk) 04:43, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

As I now discover, this was heavily discussed on MatPlus a decade ago. It seems that metaphysical castling rights exist, but metaphysical en passant rights do not. Nonetheless I agree with Joost de Heer, Valery Liskovets, and Stewart Reuben that this is illogical. :) Double sharp (talk) 17:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Misconceptions about en passant

Should we address the misconception that en passant is forced? Not sure how common this misconception is, but I do see it arising from time to time. ComeAndHear (talk) 03:02, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

"Making the capture is optional, unless there is no other legal move." I think we have it covered. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 05:07, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Must have missed that. Do you think it belongs in the lede? ComeAndHear (talk) 11:26, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's needed. Casual players are typically not even aware of the rule, let alone have any misconceptions about it. I don't think this misunderstanding is common. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 20:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

En passant

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch • Watch article reassessment page • Most recent review

Result: Issues addressed. Kept. 48JCL (talk) 17:00, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

Failed verification tags- whole section is uncited. Some sources may be unreliable. A bit many primary sources to my likings. If this is not fixed by 29 May 2024, then this article shall be demoted to C class. 48JCL (talk) 19:36, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

The section with no citations is En passant#Chess variants. It was added largely in a couple of edits in January and March 2021. The question of which variants have en passant and which do not is not one that I have seen discussed in my reading, and I would be happy to remove the whole section, if there were consensus to do so. Bruce leverett (talk) 02:40, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The "failed verification" tag is on the citation of McCrary's article in Chess Life. The article is interesting, and discusses en passant, but it does not support the claim that the earliest references were from the 16th century.

That citation was added last November, by an editor who has since been indefinitely blocked for disruptive editing! Before it was added, we weren't any better off, because the claim that the earliest references were from the 16th century wasn't supported by any cited source at all.

I would have guessed that Murray's A History of Chess would at least discuss the question of when en passant was introduced, but I don't see it. On page 812, he mentions en passant in listing the differences in the rules used in Spain versus in Italy, and on page 815, he mentions it in connection with Ruy Lopez's book. One can infer from this that the rule was referenced in the 16th century, but not that this was the "earliest" century. Bruce leverett (talk) 03:21, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Because that whole section got removed, wouldn’t this article now fail criteria 3? 48JCL (talk) 22:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

The summary also got removed @Bruce leverett 48JCL (talk) 22:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Since we don't have a reference for the first appearance of the rule being in the 16th Century, let's say that it was by (or no later than) the 16th Century, since it was in Ruy Lopez's book. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:13, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bruce leverett @Bubba73 would it be possible to add the previous section back with some sources? If not, I will keep either way 48JCL (talk) 13:44, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to the section on Chess Variants. I and another editor opined that this section could be removed, and nobody spoke up for it, so somebody removed it. If you want to make a case for it, go ahead.

The point of my own complaint was that if no one out there really wants or cares about en passant in chess variants, we don't have to discuss it in Wikipedia. There are few hard-and-fast rules about what material is worth including in an article, but lack of notability is certainly something that should be considered. Although I myself might be curious about which chess variants have en passant, my own curiosity isn't important.

BTW, since there are two threads of discussion here, one about chess variants, and the other about history of en passant, it would be helpful to try to keep them physically separate, rather than asking about chess variants in a reply to a suggestion about Ruy Lopez. Bruce leverett (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Essay?

"This article is written like a personal reflection, personal essay, or argumentative essay that states a Wikipedia editor's personal feelings or presents an original argument about a topic. (May 2024)"

I don't see how this is any of those types of essays. It clearly states the rule and gives examples. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 02:09, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Agree, I don't think that tag is appropriate. It's intended for articles that might potentially violate NPOV, which is not the case here. The other issue, the complete lack of sources for the rules in chess variants, is valid. In fact I wouldn't mind seeing that section disappear altogether. About all that can be said on the topic is that some Western chess variants include the en passant rule or a variation of it. I don't think this is very interesting or important information. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 09:43, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that is sufficient. I have Pritchard's big book of variations, so I could check. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 23:22, 23 May 2024 (UTC)

Ruy Lopez discusses en passant

He also acknowledges that the rule was not universal at the time. I have a copy of the recent English translation. It's very wordy but I can quote chapter and verse if you like. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)