[Retros] Again about En Passant Chess

[Rol, Guus]

Hi all,

I like Andrew's metaphor. If we need to start from the original
justification of the en-passant pawn move - presumably preventing the
creation of a passed pawn - we can never justify the generalized idea of
en-passant chess. There are no "passed pieces" in the same sense that
there are "passed pawns". For extensions we should therefore look at the
"how" rather than the "why" of the e.p. action. To prevent getting in
all sorts of "collapsed time" trouble, the idea of trailing supply
wagons is most appropriate. When the supply wagons are taken, the
advanced owner unit is captured and its prisoners freed.

Guus Rol.



> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----

> Van: retros-bounces at janko.at [mailto:retros-bounces at janko.at]

> Namens Noam Elkies

> Verzonden: zondag 25 maart 2007 18:07

> Aan: retros at janko.at

> Onderwerp: Re: [Retros] Again about En Passant Chess

> 

> 

> Andrew writes:

> 

> > The best metaphor to drift into my mind is that each unit

> is in fact a

> > military regiment trailing supply wagons behind it after it moves.

> > [...] This metaphor ironically returns to the military origins of 

> > chess as a wargame.  Perhaps once upon a time universal en 

> passant was

> > the standard rule for the game, and what we have today for pawns is

> > just the last vestige of that ancient and realistic rule... :-)

> 

> That's amusing, though the e.p. rule is sufficiently recent

> that its history is known more-or-less exactly, and is 

> nothing like the above just-so story.  (If I remember right, 

> it was introduced together with the pawn's double-move option 

> to prevent that option from creating passed pawns where none 

> would have existed under the old rules.)

> 

> NDE

> _______________________________________________

> Retros mailing list

> Retros at janko.at http://www.pairlist.net/mailman/listinfo/retros

>