Following a line from Capablanca's Chess Fundamentals - is this a mistake?

This is the starting setup: lichess.org/analysis/8/8/8/4k3/8/8/8/4K2R_w_-_-_0_1#0

He says to proceed as such: "1 K - K 2, K - Q 4; 2 K - K 3." I think that in algebraic notation this would mean 1. ke2 kd4 2. ke3, but that's an illegal move! Am I misunderstanding the descriptive notation?

The book is free on Project Gutenberg if you want to see it yourself. It's chapter 1, example 2.

Interesting... It does seem to be an illegal move

Hello, it's 1. Ke2 Kd5, not 1. Ke2 Kd4 :)

@Occuria Oh yeah, the numbers are switched for black! Thanks!