@deepLA I also took that for granted (if you mean "in passing the square it is taken"), but some people interpret it as "in passing the attacking pawn". Which is not so easy to refute.
Even FIDE, has changed the focus of the rule, from "A pawn attacking a square 'crossed' by..." to "A pawn occupying a square on the same rank as and on an adjacent file to...", for tournaments from 2014 to 2017. They have literally re-written the article.
I myself have no doubts, but it is curious to discover this not so illogical interpretation, and see the split results.
@Sidonia-ChessEngine fxe5(ep) is wrong. It should be fxe6(ep)
This one is original, I just made it:
The « En-passant » rule, can be applied, when a pawn jumps forward two squares in one tempo, and gets caught for crossing over a pawn attacked square. After the jump, the opponent has two immediate choices : Either let it go by or immediately capture it.
Think of the times the rule was invented. People played for money and there were many more kills and injuries in case of brawls. The old rule was: Pawn one step. The new rule was: Pawn two steps in the first move. The rule was not yet known to everybody. So what happened? A quarrel: You want to cheat me! I have the right to take your pawn! and taking his knife out.
So a french speaking chess player proposed the "en passant" rule. And as french was lingua franca those days the name became international.
O.k. it's only a fantasy of mine. But maybe you like it. ;)
A third, but rather unconventional,way of describing the movement of the knight is that it can jump to any square on its "super square" provided that it is of the opposite color of its origin square, as demonstrated here:
https://lichess.org/study/zZH7uxj5
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.