Value of a second king

Alright, this is sort of a trick question, lets say that a new minor piece is introduced into the game of chess somehow, and that piece can move exactly like a king does, but if eaten, the game would still go on, sort of like having two kings on the board, the main difference being that one is just a regular minor piece, while the other's survival would determine the outcome of the game.

What value would this ''king impostor'' have? Three points? Five points? 

Probably valuable and an interesting factor if you only get one, but I dont think I like it.

It also depends where it would be initially placed.

You have the ability to cover any hole, but it would be tempo consuming.

Thanks for the tricky question.

Do you guys understand Spanish? I guess not, and even if you did this memes are way better than anything you can explain/experience on english.

I wlill try to stay on topic, but dude, just look at this gold meme.

Most of the good memes are not allowed in this page tho.

What would be the value of a pawn that could go back?

Let's call it the kingmover (KM) for ease of reference. Endgame K+Q vs K+KM looks like draw, while endgame K+Q vs K+R is sometimes lost.

Endgame K+KM vs K also looks like draw.

So i'm not sure if the kingmover is stronger or weaker than a rook.

http://elajedrezdelvirrey.com/las-reglas-del-ajedrez-del-virrey-virrey-chess-rules/

On books about the basics I've usually found they give the king a strenght between a minor and a rook, more or less.

It would be more valuable in the endgame, especially if there were no ranged pieces left. Until then it would largely be a vulnerable, square occupying, tempo devouring liability. 

It would be an amazing defender though. Only the queen can cover squares in an area like that. Imagine king on e3. Center and kingside already really solid.

The normal king is valued somewhere between minor piece and rook. 5 is probably way too high.

Also because a 2nd king would be a little redundant, so I think its value should be worth a little less anyway, closer to a minor piece.

A king is actually a heavy piece because it covers both colours, it's just extremely short ranged. This means it ought to be a bit more valuable than a minor piece as was said above. Most of you will agree there's no way a king is better than a rook, though in some cases it is! Consider how a king can always fend off 2 connected passers while a rook cannot as soon as the pawns are on the 6th row. This is of course an exception case and my personal feeling is about 4 points for the king is accurate.