Talk:Madrasi chess

Chess Start‑class Low‑importance

	Chess portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chess on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChessWikipedia:WikiProject ChessTemplate:WikiProject Chesschess
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:SGames

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 June 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.

En passant an exception?

I don't get this. An en passant capture is available for one move only. So after, say, 1. e4 e6 2. e5 d5, we indeed have a case where white's pawn on e5 is attacking black's on d5, but not vice versa. But since it is white's turn at this point, no paralysis takes effect. Come black's turn, white has either taken the en passant capture or permanently declined it. In the latter case, the pawn on d5 is no longer attacked, therefore can move.

Or is it trying to say:

white's right to capture en passant expires when his move 4 comes round, rather than when he has just played his move 3, and so the black pawn is still immobile for one move?
it's still conceptually a case where one piece is immobilising the other but not vice versa, although it has no effect in practice?

— Smjg (talk) 22:36, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

An enpassant attack is not mutual, also it is in effect for only one move. According to Pritchard, it is debatable. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 01:11, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your first sentence has done nothing but reiterate the points that prompted my query in the first place. But seeing Pritchard's wording on the whole topic would help with rewriting the statement to make sense. — Smjg (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"The status of two pawns in an e.p. situation has been debated: it can be argued that both are inert or only the pawn able to capture e.p. is inert." Pritchard, pg. 45. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 03:46, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]