Here I do not understand you. 'Obsolete' does not mean 'out of date', but redundant. With my variation, the 'en passant' rule becomes unnecessary.
So people can still capture en passant, in this variant. Because whether it is unnecessary or not is not for you to decide, but up to the player. I would certainly prefer e.p. capture over replacement capture in some positions. In particular when the Pawn that made the double-step was protected on the square it landed on, but would not have been on the e.p. square, I would consider it better to capture it en passant. Whether it is 'necessary' or not to avoid loss of a Pawn can of course be debated.
then exactly your statement happens, namely that the pawn now has 6 possibilities instead of two to capture.
No, that is not what "more moves per turn" means. You just give a choice between more moves, but the player can play only one of those. In Progressive Chess you would be able to move 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... different Pawns each turn.
So people can still capture en passant, in this variant. Because whether it is unnecessary or not is not for you to decide, but up to the player. I would certainly prefer e.p. capture over replacement capture in some positions. In particular when the Pawn that made the double-step was protected on the square it landed on, but would not have been on the e.p. square, I would consider it better to capture it en passant. Whether it is 'necessary' or not to avoid loss of a Pawn can of course be debated.
No, that is not what "more moves per turn" means. You just give a choice between more moves, but the player can play only one of those. In Progressive Chess you would be able to move 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, ... different Pawns each turn.