Talk:Madrasi chess

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)

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)

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)

"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)

Clearly Pritchard wasn't thinking it through properly - because it lasts only for the attacking player's move, those two possibilities are identical. And it also contradicts the article, which states that it's the attacked piece, rather than the attacking piece, that is immobilised. What would be consistent with this statement, OTOH, is if only the pawn attacked en passant is immobilised – which, since it's the attacking player's turn at that point, means that an en passant situation has no immobilising effect in practice. — Smjg (talk) 22:32, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. Pritchard died before finishing the second edition, so some of the things in it were written by Beasley. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:51, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The standard applied in chess problems is that the paralysis of (the pawn that has just made the double-step) by (the pawn that could take it e.p.) is one-sided and temporary. It is well known and repeatedly exploited. See e.g. the page with extract from the article that appeared in printed magazine already sometime in 2000: Madrasi only "en passant" (please, concentrate on non-series problems in the second half as there is "normal" order of moves in non-series problems). --Ruziklan (talk) 12:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

It seems to me the en passant is impossible. While in the first square the pawn is paralyzed and cannot make it to the second square in the same sequence. So having a pawn on that rank means double pushing is impossible. Though the same sort of question exists in classic chess. If a pawn that can be enpassanted mates the king, did it really make it since it was captured the move after mate by the pawn and never made it to the second square to checkmate. Tat (talk) 14:49, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Another matter of debate

Is it generally accepted that the immobilisation of rooks includes castling? I guess it does, since the rook needs to move. But in some respects castling is treated as a king move, so I can imagine that some may allow castling out of this situation. — Smjg (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I suppose it would apply. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 14:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

What is "it" exactly? — Smjg (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

need name root

Which part of world the game designer from? Abdul Jabbar Karwatkar's nationality? I also wanted to know how he put the the name madrasi? Which language root he used?--Arjunkmohan (talk) 14:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)