Answers.Body: <p>No. Such a thing makes no sense and so hasn't been done in regular chess.</p>
  <p>Pawns can only move forwards, either straight ahead or diagonally forwards. Hence the need for an en passant rule when the rules were changed to allow pawns to move two squares on their first move. All the other pieces can move and capture backwards. Hence a pawn moving two squares in one turn does not escape the possibility of capture by another piece so such a move would have no rationale.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-02-03T17:49:06.097Z
Answers.Text: "makes sense" is not a metric that has been uniformly applied in the history of chess(cf. "Kings can't leap/castle if in check/if they've ever been in check".), so this seems a bit spurious as a foundation. Is there a source for that?
Answers.UserDisplayName: L. Scott Johnson
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2022-02-03T16:53:22.170Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2022-02-03T16:53:22.170Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Brian Towers
Body: <p>Relevant similar question:</p>
  <p><a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4422/why-cant-a-piece-that-isnt-a-pawn-capture-en-passant">Why can't a piece (that isn't a pawn) capture en passant?</a></p>
  <p>Question:</p>
  <p>When the game of chess evolved differently in various regions, was there any case in which the addition of the pawn's double move was accompanied by a variation of the en passant capture rule that enabled any piece to capture the pawn in the square it &quot;skipped&quot; over rather than restricting that capture only to opposing pawns?</p>
  <p>(Not to be confused with the similar but orthogonal question, <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/38706/is-there-a-variant-in-which-any-piece-can-be-taken-en-passant">Is there a variant in which any piece can be taken 'en passant'?</a>)</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-02-03T15:15:10.553Z
Comments.Text: Hmm. Sorry for the bad question. I've only been lurking here a year, so I may have missed something. Could you help me identify whatever problem there is with this question?
Comments.UserDisplayName: L. Scott Johnson
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2022-07-15T02:56:24.067Z
Comments.Text: En passe itself is fantasy. Since modern chess is controlled by Arabs and European groups, whatever they were doing since 8 centuries have been becoming part of modern chess. And yes, few people deliberately want to keep Chess as main game and rest other as variant of chess.
Comments.UserDisplayName: ShadYantra
Tags: <history><en-passant>
Title: In the evolution of chess, was there ever a version in which any piece could capture a pawn en passant?
ThreadText: # In the evolution of chess, was there ever a version in which any piece could capture a pawn en passant?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2022-02-03)
  
  Relevant similar question:
  
  [Why can't a piece (that isn't a pawn) capture en passant?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/4422/why-cant-a-piece-that-isnt-a-pawn-capture-en-passant)
  
  Question:
  
  When the game of chess evolved differently in various regions, was there any case in which the addition of the pawn's double move was accompanied by a variation of the en passant capture rule that enabled any piece to capture the pawn in the square it "skipped" over rather than restricting that capture only to opposing pawns?
  
  (Not to be confused with the similar but orthogonal question, [Is there a variant in which any piece can be taken 'en passant'?](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/38706/is-there-a-variant-in-which-any-piece-can-be-taken-en-passant))
  
  **Tags:** history, en-passant
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Hmm. Sorry for the bad question. I've only been lurking here a year, so I may have missed something. Could you help me identify whatever problem there is with this question?  
  > **username_1**: En passe itself is fantasy. Since modern chess is controlled by Arabs and European groups, whatever they were doing since 8 centuries have been becoming part of modern chess. And yes, few people deliberately want to keep Chess as main game and rest other as variant of chess.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2022-02-03. Score: 1
  
  No. Such a thing makes no sense and so hasn't been done in regular chess.
  
  Pawns can only move forwards, either straight ahead or diagonally forwards. Hence the need for an en passant rule when the rules were changed to allow pawns to move two squares on their first move. All the other pieces can move and capture backwards. Hence a pawn moving two squares in one turn does not escape the possibility of capture by another piece so such a move would have no rationale.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: "makes sense" is not a metric that has been uniformly applied in the history of chess(cf. "Kings can't leap/castle if in check/if they've ever been in check".), so this seems a bit spurious as a foundation. Is there a source for that?  
  
  ---
  
  