Answers.Body: <p>This is actually very common in blitz games.  Taking the opponent's king is considered to be a claim of an illegal move.  You can see my answer to <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/181/i-made-an-illegal-move-what-happens">this question</a> for some more information.</p>
  
  <p>Since taking the opponent's king is a <em>claim</em> instead of a move, it immediately ends the game.  In blitz games, the player "capturing" the king wins.  In slower games, taking the king is in fact illegal, and if a player did this, the position would be reset to the position before the first illegal move, and then any touch move rules would apply.  If there were time pressure considerations, one or both players could have two minutes added to their clocks at the arbiter's discretion.  </p>
  
  <p>From the <a href="http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=125&amp;view=article" rel="noreferrer">FIDE Appendix for Blitz and Rapidplay</a></p>
  
  <p>Article A.4.c:  </p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>An illegal move is completed once the opponent’s clock has been
    started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made
    his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s
    king by any possible series of legal moves, then the claimant is
    entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move. Once the
    opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected
    unless mutually agreed without intervention of an arbiter.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-01-14T11:48:58.510Z
Answers.Text: the question is not about USCF but FIDE rules, so this answer is plain wrong.
Answers.UserDisplayName: peter
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-15T19:10:56.007Z
Answers.Text: Where is stated in the rules that taking the opponent's King is a claim instead of a move? I'm not sure it is inferred from the quoted Article A.4.c. Please note that I'm not talking about etiquette but about enforceable rules. I can only infer from A.4.c that if after the first King capture the other King is also taken, then it would be a draw because no one can be mated without Kings. However, the original post was really about if claiming the illegal move by taking the King was a doomed (and losing) idea, because it is some sort of common practice.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Pep
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-15T22:14:06.693Z
Answers.Text: @Pep At least in USCF rules, taking the opponent king is explicitly interpreted as a claim, not a move.  ([excerpt of USCF blitz rules](http://oscf.org/blitz/)) This means that the "losing player" can never "recapture" the king because no move has been made - it is still the "winning" player's move.  I don't think FIDE covers this situation because FIDE wants an arbiter per game who would stop the game if the king were captured. Consider this - after taking the king the only options are declare a win for the capturer, or say that taking the king is illegal and the game is lost by the capturer.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-15T18:53:00.963Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-05-15T18:53:00.963Z
Answers.LastEditDate: 2017-04-13T12:48:53.737Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Andrew
Answers.Body: <p>Capturing the King is an illegal move according to FIDE.</p>
  
  <p>Refer to Article 1.2 from the <a href="http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&amp;view=article">Laws of Chess</a></p>
  
  <blockquote>
    <p>The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under
    attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player
    who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s
    king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack,
    exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s
    king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has
    lost the game.</p>
  </blockquote>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2012-05-15T18:40:58.137Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2012-05-15T18:40:58.137Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: PeskyGnat
Body: <p>In competition blitz games, making an illegal move and then pressing the clock forfeits the game if the opponent claims the illegal move as long as they do not make a new move, as a new move would void the previous illegal move according to FIDE blitz rules.</p>
  
  <p>I've seen all kind of forfeits because of this reason in blitz games, including one player taking one of his own pawns.</p>
  
  <p>However, the most common case for illegal moves is neglecting that the King is in check or unprotecting the King. In this case where the King is checked, if the opponent takes the exposed king and presses the clock, are they making a new illegal move, hence voiding the previous one?</p>
  
  <p>I've been told that taking the King, even as a kind of "joke" to expose a previous illegal move, is an illegal move by itself, because the King cannot be taken, only mated. Is this true under FIDE rules?</p>
  
Tags: <rules><blitz><illegal-move>
Title: Is taking the opponent's king an illegal move?
ThreadText: # Is taking the opponent's king an illegal move?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2012-05-15)
  
  In competition blitz games, making an illegal move and then pressing the clock forfeits the game if the opponent claims the illegal move as long as they do not make a new move, as a new move would void the previous illegal move according to FIDE blitz rules.
  
  I've seen all kind of forfeits because of this reason in blitz games, including one player taking one of his own pawns.
  
  However, the most common case for illegal moves is neglecting that the King is in check or unprotecting the King. In this case where the King is checked, if the opponent takes the exposed king and presses the clock, are they making a new illegal move, hence voiding the previous one?
  
  I've been told that taking the King, even as a kind of "joke" to expose a previous illegal move, is an illegal move by itself, because the King cannot be taken, only mated. Is this true under FIDE rules?
  
  **Tags:** rules, blitz, illegal-move
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2012-05-15. Score: 18 | Accepted answer
  
  Capturing the King is an illegal move according to FIDE.
  
  Refer to Article 1.2 from the [Laws of Chess](http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=124&view=article)
  
  > The objective of each player is to place the opponent’s king ‘under
  > attack’ in such a way that the opponent has no legal move. The player
  > who achieves this goal is said to have ‘checkmated’ the opponent’s
  > king and to have won the game. Leaving one’s own king under attack,
  > exposing one’s own king to attack and also ’capturing’ the opponent’s
  > king are not allowed. The opponent whose king has been checkmated has
  > lost the game.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2012-05-15. Score: 17
  
  This is actually very common in blitz games. Taking the opponent's king is considered to be a claim of an illegal move. You can see my answer to [this question](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/181/i-made-an-illegal-move-what-happens) for some more information.
  
  Since taking the opponent's king is a *claim* instead of a move, it immediately ends the game. In blitz games, the player "capturing" the king wins. In slower games, taking the king is in fact illegal, and if a player did this, the position would be reset to the position before the first illegal move, and then any touch move rules would apply. If there were time pressure considerations, one or both players could have two minutes added to their clocks at the arbiter's discretion.
  
  From the [FIDE Appendix for Blitz and Rapidplay](http://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=125&view=article)
  
  Article A.4.c:
  
  > An illegal move is completed once the opponent’s clock has been
  > started. The opponent is entitled to claim a win before he has made
  > his own move. However, if the opponent cannot checkmate the player’s
  > king by any possible series of legal moves, then the claimant is
  > entitled to claim a draw before he has made his own move. Once the
  > opponent has made his own move, an illegal move cannot be corrected
  > unless mutually agreed without intervention of an arbiter.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: Where is stated in the rules that taking the opponent's King is a claim instead of a move? I'm not sure it is inferred from the quoted Article A.4.c. Please note that I'm not talking about etiquette but about enforceable rules. I can only infer from A.4.c that if after the first King capture the other King is also taken, then it would be a draw because no one can be mated without Kings. However, the original post was really about if claiming the illegal move by taking the King was a doomed (and losing) idea, because it is some sort of common practice.  
  > **username_1**: @username_0 At least in USCF rules, taking the opponent king is explicitly interpreted as a claim, not a move.  ([excerpt of USCF blitz rules](http://oscf.org/blitz/)) This means that the "losing player" can never "recapture" the king because no move has been made - it is still the "winning" player's move.  I don't think FIDE covers this situation because FIDE wants an arbiter per game who would stop the game if the king were captured. Consider this - after taking the king the only options are declare a win for the capturer, or say that taking the king is illegal and the game is lost by the capturer.  
  > **username_2**: the question is not about USCF but FIDE rules, so this answer is plain wrong.  
  
  ---
  
  