Talk:En passant

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, 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)#Long_algebraic_notation 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)

ISaveNewspapers, 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)

ISaveNewspapers: 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. [1]. 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. [2]. 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. [3] 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 Max is up to it?)

Here's the book data: {{cite book |last=Parlett |first=David |authorlink=David Parlett |title=The Oxford History of Board Games |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] Inc |year=1999 |page=305 |isbn=0-19-212998-8}}

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 it: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)

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"): [4]. 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)