EMERGENCY - King VS King

Hello! This is my first time posting on this forum, but I have been playing chess for a long time. Today, something quite peculiar happened in a match. One person had his king up against his side of the board, and the other had his king just 2 squares away. The bishop was protecting the place for the white king right in front of the black king (I most definitely explained this quite badly. Please look at diagram below), and it was white's turn to play. Can white take black's pawn with his king? Now before you say that this move is illegal, think about it like this: moving two kings next to each other itself isn't illegal; it's the fact that the king moved would be placed in check, and it's this portion that is illegal. Moving your king into check is against the rules. However, checking is when the king can be taken in the next move, right? However, in this case, the bishop is protecting that square, so the black king is (according to rules) not allowed to move forward where his pawn is. If the white king takes it, he won't be in danger of being taken because it is impossible for the black king to move into check. Thus, the white king is not moving into check, making the move legal... Would this work? Let me explain in another way. If white moved his king into check from any piece other than black's king, then any sort of protection would not matter; black moving his piece to take white's king is not illegal, thus white is moving his king into check, which is illegal. However, if the only piece that can take white's king is black's king, and the square where the white king will be going to is protected by another white piece, then it would be illegal for black to take white's king. As it is not possible for black to take white's king, white's king is not moving into check. Is this possible? Please answer as soon as possible with evidence... I need to know this by tomorrow! Please. Thanks guys!

Stalemate, u should ahve used the unmateable opining

its illegal

Illegal.  Obviously.

China called, they want their wall back.

How so? Wouldn't the white king not be moving into check as the black king can't take the white king? 

The white king WOULD be moving into check.  Nobody can ever take a king, so that part is irrelevant.

•  Member Since: Jan 16, 2014

lol hes a troll

Err.... sorry, I guess I was using the wrong terminology. If you look online, it's said that this move cannot be done because the white king would be moving into check, but again, this case is slightly special (I think)... The white king is not in danger at all due to the bishop, as moving the black king to end the game is not possible due to the rules (moving into check = illegal).

Err... again, this is different because in your case the bishop is allowed to take the king without a problem. However, in the one listed in my post, the black king is not allowed to take the white king due to the bishop.

...? 

Wait, so does this work or are you being sarcastic? I really just want to know, I am not trolling and I wish people would actually think before just dismissing it as illegal.

Of course everyone would dismiss it as illegal because it is just not possible. This is a serious case of trolling. Please report to your local doctor to treeat yourself.

.... o.0 

Now I'm really confused....

But in that case, wouldn't both kings just not be able to take ( <-- is there another word for this that applies to only kings? It seems like I'm using the wrong terminology) each other?

It seems illegal, but at the same time it doesn't...

I'm really not trying to troll, I'm wondering why this is illegal if the black king can't take the white king, thus the white king isn't in check...

Just use this simple trick. If you can take a king, then you can't play chess. Therefore, it is illegal move.

It should be dismissed as illegal, because it is illegal. Two kings can never be next to each other, ever. It is what is known as opposition, and it is a fundamental in endgame knowledge.

Again, I just searched opposition and it has no mention of a case where a king is moving into a protected square... It would definitely be illegal if the square the king is moving into is not protected (as that would be moving into check from the other king), but this is not the case here

But what I'm wondering about is whether the king can be taken. There is an explicitly stated rule that  kings cannot move into check. However, I have yet to find anywhere that specifically states that moving a king next to another king is illegal. It always says that this move cannot be done because moving a king next to another king is moving into check, which is illegal. However, the black king taking the white king is illegal because of the above rule, thus the white king cannot be taken by the black king. Therefore, it is not check... right?