my white King is separated from the black King by one square (between) which is defended by my white rook. I relocated my white King alongside the black color King placing him in examine (from the square defended by my rook). My enemy says that this is an illegal move since two majesties cannot confront each other. I complete that mine white King have the right to threaten the black King native a defended square (by mine rook). Who"s right?


*

*

Your girlfriend is right. Think of that in terms of capturing the king: check way that her king can be caught on your opponent"s following move. If you might move her king beside your opponent"s king, your king can be recorded on her opponent"s following move; the fact that after that friend could catch 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 capture a king in chess


*

what if over there is only one king and also no other pieces he has no means to back his king up... How have the right to the enemy not placed him in examine if he has a rook obtainable he might not be able to check friend him but definitely placed him in check
Your friend and also the existing answer right here are both right: girlfriend can"t carry out that.

There"s no explicit law of beer-selection.com for just this situation because it"s totally covered through a slightly much more general post from the FIDE legislations of beer-selection.com:

3.9.1 The king is claimed to be "in check" if that is assaulted by one or more of the opponent"s pieces, also if such pieces space constrained from moving to the square occupied by the king because they would then leave or ar their own king in check.

This consists both your situation -- the square is thought about "attacked" through the opponent"s king also though it might not be moved there since of the rook -- and also other cases, e.g. A item pinned versus it"s king is still considered to strike all the squares it could move to to be it no for the pin, hence the opposing king can not be moved to any of them.


re-superstructure
improve this answer
follow
edited may 23 "18 in ~ 21:33
*

gdrt
1,00011 yellow badge66 silver- badges2323 bronze badges
answered january 2 "15 at 16:22
*

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

See more: Light Brown Sugar Calories In 1 Tablespoon Of Brown Sugar, Calories In 1 Tbsp Brown Sugar

However, the USCF rules because that blitz beer-selection.com state

"3b) If an illegal position is produced or an illegal relocate made there is no the adversary making a claim, the place stands and a claim not enabled when the opponent has figured out a following move."

While this provision is obscure, it is occasionally amusing. I remember seeing someone in a plainly won endgame position about to queen a pawn under significant time pressure, while his opponent simply relocated his king ago and forth. Just prior to the queening pawn move, the ordinarily losing foe checked the guy with his king. The human being who queened go not insurance claim a win prior to pressing his clock, and he to be startled to lose to KxK!

However, I check out that the USCF has added explicit point out of this procedure to the ascendancy book:

"16.) moving the King next to an additional King is an illegal move. Deliberately playing a king alongside the opponent’s in bespeak to take the opponent’s king top top the next move (if not caught) is a cheap shot and will no be tolerated! prevent the clock and claim a win due to the fact that of an illegal move."

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