Comments on: En Passant

By: mebepop

mebepop — Wed, 23 Aug 2006 13:14:06 +0000

En passant (from French: “while [the pawn is] passing”) is a maneuver in the board game of chess. The en passant rule applies when a player moves a pawn two squares forward from its starting position, and an opposing pawn could have captured it if it had only moved one square forward. The rule states that the opposing pawn may then capture the pawn as if it had only moved one square forward. The resulting position is the same as if the pawn had only moved one square forward and then the opposing pawn had captured as normal. En passant must be done on the very next turn, or the right to do so is lost. The move is unusual in that it is the only occasion in chess in which a piece captures but does not move to the square of the captured piece. In chess notation, en passant captures are sometimes denoted by “e.p.” or similar, but that isn’t required.

By: brian

brian — Sun, 17 Apr 2005 19:01:02 +0000

I've found some chess game and free Puzzle games online. Maybe you should check it out if you have a time to spend.

By: Jason Shields

Jason Shields — Wed, 16 Mar 2005 02:17:43 +0000

As the inventor of nuclear chess, can I ask when you played the variant you played by the same name? Look up “Nuclear Chess” on google to find the rules and my site. If you want, you can invite me to a Play by mail game in chessvariants.com

By: Dan

Dan — Fri, 07 Jan 2005 11:03:47 +0000

When I saw this post & comments it reminded me of something I had seen showing a visualisation of all the moves the computer is considering….shown as colourful threads, and it takes a few seconds at least to decide, so you get that feeling of the computer considering it’s options
http://www.turbulence.org/spotlight/thinking/chess.html

there is also a subtle pulsing effect to show the squares you can move to….

it’s quite lightweight I think….but covers some of the points you made.
hope you enjoy!

By: Darren Clagle

Darren Clagle — Sun, 26 Dec 2004 20:28:01 +0000

I agree with Nemerson, above. Folks, really, what fun is chess if none of the mental power involved is engaged in gauging possibility? If all areas you can move to and all areas your opponent can move to are highlighted, one of the most exciting elements of chess is lost. The only thing left to judge at all (in other words, the only challenge) would be mental highlighting of possibilities on your next turn (the prediction and preemtion part). Actual careful maneuvering on the board and measuring threats is more or less gone. More importantly, it would make players lazy. For example, if you see a diagonal line of red, but also see the rest of the board speckled with red dots that make the line indistinguishable as such, you’ll merely avoid a red square like any other without acknowledging that a bishop is the cause and that on the next turn if the bishop slides down that line he can easily attack you within one more turn, at the same time blocking another bishop of yours (a safety net that caused the last square to be “friend” colored). For chess, the complication of deciding where enemies can and will move is the whole point; if you take out the “can” part you’re making it unnatural. To get good at it, you really do have to weather the tiresome mental highlighting yourself. Having highlights is like having an “Undo”; it kills the spirit.

My $.02.

By: David Andreasen

David Andreasen — Tue, 14 Dec 2004 17:40:14 +0000

For a fun chess variant you might like Nightmare Chess by Steve Jackson Games. You play chess as normal except each player has a hand of cards that let him/her do interesting things. There's a card that allows a player to switch the positions of one of their knights and one of their rooks, for example. There's a card that allows you to take your king off the board for one full turn and then return it to any edge space. There's a card that lets you move a pawn as if it were a bishop for one turn. There's even a Fireball card that lets you detonate one of your pawns in the manner that you described. Etc. It's a crazy game -- you never know what's going to happen on your opponent's turn. It's certainly not for chess purists, but it's wacky fun when you're in the mood.

By: Bill

Bill — Sun, 12 Dec 2004 03:12:04 +0000

kalu, it would have to require the use of some other trick – such as the xmlObject so that each move passes information back to the server. each client would also probably have to use that same xmlobject idea to query the server every x (where x may be a fraction) seconds so that an update could be shown on the screen of both players without having to refresh.

i don’t think having your screen refresh all the time would be very “user friendly” for a game.

using that technique, then yes, I think it would be possible – you would just have to have a server side data store that kept track of the game(s) currently in progress. With that in place, so long as you knew what game id you had the game could even take place over many sessions really.

By: kalu

kalu — Sat, 11 Dec 2004 23:51:22 +0000

Can something like chinese checkers be imlemented completely using the web technology of html / js / css so two people can play with each other with only the browser at thier hands.

Since eric is the god of CSS just wanted to gode him into developing it :)

kalu

By: James Kilfiger

James Kilfiger — Sat, 11 Dec 2004 00:22:42 +0000

Try one of the go programs (gnugo is free). Because the number of possible moves in go is vast, computers can't depend on looking ahead for n moves, and have to rely more on pattern matching and that kind of heuristics. As a result computers make the same kind of dumb mistakes that I am make. Also go has a handicapping system, so anyone can get the pleasure of beating the machine.

By: Dean

Dean — Fri, 10 Dec 2004 18:41:50 +0000

I’ve never been that good at chess. It’s hard to think ahead multiple moves — keeping all the possibilities in mind — and see a strategy to follow. I can see one move or 2, but no more than that. I’ve always wanted to study chess though and become better at it. It’s one of those things that’s supposed to be good for you, like learning to play an instrument or studying math as a child. Maybe some day.

By: Seth Thomas Rasmussen

Seth Thomas Rasmussen — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 22:01:41 +0000

Evan,

It sounds like your rules there don’t cover the instance of when all other rules aren’t broken, but the king has previously been in check but got out without moving. That is the situation in which I was under the impression that you could no longer castle, but it seems that’s not the case.

By: Evan Nemerson

Evan Nemerson — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:26:55 +0000

I love chess. I probably average about one game per day, and it's just not the same on the computer (that holds true when playing another person online). Usually the first few moves when I play in real life are immediate. There are only so many good openings, and when you play enough you learn how to react to each of them. Often I'm able to move immediately later in the game as well--it doesn't mean that my opponent has fallen into a trap, only that I knew what they were going to do and decided on how to counter it before they did it. Of course, I often take a few seconds to pretend that I'm deep in thought about it because I don't want them to notice that their queen is in danger ;) Back in the days when I used Windows, I had a program called KChess Elite which put a red border around the square of the pieces in danger. Personally, I hate that feature, but to each their own. An interesting read is an old e-mail on The Anatomy of Chess Programs (took me forever to remember the bloody title). It's a bit of a tangent from what you wrote about, but may be of interest.

By: Trent

Trent — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 17:24:52 +0000

Nothing is more boring than bad chess. But when chess is done right, I find it exciting and stimulating. Every couple years, I go on a chess binge. I’m in the middle of one now.

I *highly* recommend reading the “Novice Nook” columns in the http://www.chesscafe.com archives. Also, check out books by Yasser Seirawan (especially the Tactics one).

For a beginner, playing against a computer is frustrating and ultimately pointless. I recommend downloading Blitzen and logging onto the Internet Chess Club. You can play as a guest for free.

By: Dean

Dean — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:53:28 +0000

One of the things that most often frustrates me about computer chess is that the AI will make a move within seconds of my making a move. More often, it will do so immediately. Then I sit there, thinking my slow organic thoughts, feeling vaguely stupid for being such a slowpoke even though I know there’s no direct comparison. Eventually, I make a move. Instantly, the computer makes its move. My first reaction is, “That was awfully quick. Was he waiting for the move I just made?”

That is hilarious! (Thanks for the laugh.) Yet, it makes so much sense that I’m surprised ‘Human-like turn lengths for the AI’ isn’t already a standard feature. Good idea.

By: Evan Nemerson

Evan Nemerson — Thu, 09 Dec 2004 16:44:58 +0000

It's okay if the king was previously in check, as long as you didn't get out of check by moving the king. It's also all right if you've moved the other rook.

No, no, no! According to FIDE's Laws of Chess, 3.8 a 2,

Castling is illegal:
1. if the king has already moved, or
2. with a rook that has already moved
Castling is prevented temporarily
1. if the square on which the king stands, or the square which it must cross, or the square which it is to occupy, is attacked by one or more of the opponent's pieces.
2. if there is any piece between the king and the rook with which castling is to be effected.