my white King is separated indigenous the black color King by one square (between) i m sorry is safeguarded by mine white rook. I moved my white King alongside the black King putting him in check (from the square defended by my rook). My opponent says the this is an illegal move since two queens cannot challenge each other. I compete that my white King deserve to threaten the black color King native a safeguarded square (by my rook). Who"s right?


*

*

Your girlfriend is right. Think of the in terms of catching the king: check way that your king could be captured on your opponent"s next move. If you could move your king alongside your opponent"s king, your king might be captured on her opponent"s next move; the reality that after that you could record your opponent"s king doesn"t readjust that: her king has been captured, and also you"ve lost the game.

You are watching: Can a king put a king in checkmate


*

what if there is only one king and also no various other pieces he has no means to earlier his king up... How deserve to the foe not placed him in examine if he has a rook obtainable he may not have the ability to check friend him yet definitely placed him in examine
Your friend and also the existing answer below are both right: you can"t carry out that.

There"s no explicit regulation of barisalcity.org for just this situation because it"s totally covered by a slightly an ext general article from the FIDE regulations of barisalcity.org:

3.9.1 The king is stated to it is in "in check" if that is attacked by one or much more of the opponent"s pieces, also if such pieces are constrained from relocating to the square occupied by the king since they would certainly then leave or location their own king in check.

This consist of both your case -- the square is considered "attacked" by the opponent"s king even though it can not be relocated there because of the rook -- and other cases, e.g. A item pinned against it"s king is still taken into consideration to attack all the squares it might move to to be it not for the pin, therefore the opposing king can not be moved to any type of of them.


share
boost this answer
monitor
edited may 23 "18 at 21:33
*

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

Simon JenkinsSimon Jenkins
25122 silver- badges55 bronze badges
add a comment |
7
Moving your king following to an additional player"s king is illegal.

See more: How To Do The Temple Run Glitch In Temple Run? How To Get The Temple Run Cheat Achievement

However, the USCF rules for blitz barisalcity.org state

"3b) If an illegal place is developed or one illegal relocate made there is no the enemy making a claim, the place stands and a case not permitted when the foe has identified a next move."

While this provision is obscure, it is occasionally amusing. I remember seeing someone in a clearly won endgame position around to queen a pawn under severe time pressure, if his enemy simply moved his king back and forth. Just prior to the queening pawn move, the ordinarily losing adversary checked the man with his king. The human being who queened did not claim a win before pressing his clock, and he was startled to shed to KxK!

However, I check out that the USCF has included explicit cite of this procedure to the dominance book:

"16.) relocating the King following to an additional King is one illegal move. Intentionally playing a king beside the opponent’s in stimulate to take it the opponent’s king top top the next relocate (if not caught) is a cheap shot and also will no be tolerated! protect against the clock and also claim a win because of one illegal move."

The rule publication does not define the precise an interpretation of "will not be tolerated!", no one does it mention whether added sanctions will be produced laughing.