My white King is separated native the black color King by one square (between) i beg your pardon is defended by mine white rook. I relocated my white King next to the black King placing him in check (from the square protected by mine rook). My adversary says that this is an illegal move since two queens cannot challenge each other. I contend that mine white King can threaten the black King from a defended square (by mine rook). Who"s right?


*

*

Your friend is right. Think of the in state of recording the king: check means that her king can be recorded on your opponent"s following move. If you might move her king alongside your opponent"s king, your king can be recorded on her opponent"s following move; the truth that after that girlfriend could capture your opponent"s king doesn"t change that: your king has been captured, and you"ve lost the game.

You are watching: Can a king take a king in chess


*

what if there is just one king and also no other pieces he has no means to ago his king up... How deserve to the opponent not put him in inspect if he has actually a rook available he may not have the ability to check mate him but definitely placed him in examine
Your friend and also the present answer below are both right: friend can"t execute that.

There"s no explicit law of inter-base.net for just this situation due to the fact that it"s fully covered by a slightly more general short article from the FIDE legislations of inter-base.net:

3.9.1 The king is claimed to be "in check" if the is attacked by one or an ext of the opponent"s pieces, also if together pieces space constrained from relocating to the square occupied by the king because they would then leaving or place their very own king in check.

This covers both your situation -- the square is thought about "attacked" by the opponent"s king even though it can not be moved there since of the rook -- and also other cases, e.g. A piece pinned versus it"s king is still thought about to attack all the squares it could move to were it no for the pin, for this reason the opposing king can not be relocated to any of them.


re-superstructure
boost this answer
follow
edited might 23 "18 at 21:33
*

gdrt
1,00011 gold badge66 silver- badges2323 bronze title
answered jan 2 "15 in ~ 16:22
*

Simon JenkinsSimon Jenkins
25122 silver badges55 bronze badges
include a comment |
7
Moving your king next to another player"s king is illegal.

See more: Image Of Baby Dolls Stock Photos And Images, 100+ Baby Doll Pictures

However, the USCF rules for blitz inter-base.net state

"3b) If an illegal position is developed or one illegal relocate made without the foe making a claim, the position stands and also a claim not allowed when the enemy has identified a following move."

While this provision is obscure, the is periodically amusing. Ns remember seeing someone in a clearly won endgame position about to queen a pawn under major time pressure, if his enemy simply relocated his king earlier and forth. Just before the queening pawn move, the ordinarily losing opponent checked the guy with his king. The human who queened go not case a win before pressing his clock, and also he was startled to lose to KxK!

However, I view that the USCF has added explicit mention of this procedure come the dominance book:

"16.) moving the King following to an additional King is an illegal move. Purposely playing a king next to the opponent’s in bespeak to take it the opponent’s king top top the next relocate (if not caught) is a cheap shot and also will not be tolerated! protect against the clock and also claim a win because of an illegal move."

The rule publication does not specify the precise meaning of "will not be tolerated!", no one does it cite whether added sanctions will be produced laughing.