Part of the TDs job is to verify if the claim is correct. If the TD notices that player A’s King is in check, then the claim should be ruled invalid, and denied. Now, I’m wondering if the TD may explain WHY the claim is not valid absent a claim by player B of A’s initial illegal move; I think the rule is that TDs are not to point out illegal moves. Perhaps this might be an exception?
The TD needs to respond to whatever claim is made. If player A claims an illegal move, then the TD should verify that the claim is valid. If he doesn’t notice the King in check, and player B doesn’t make his own claim, then I see no reason why the TD can’t rule in favor of player A. If player B, in the meantime, claims player A’s initial illegal move, then everything seems easy: we back the position up to before the “King-in- check” situation, and continue from there.
See above
The TD may not point out illegal moves.
No claims with a fallen flag, I believe, is the rule, but again, does the TD explain the reason, thereby, himself, making the flag fall claim?
If the flag fall wasn’t claimed, then yes, I would say 2 minutes could be added.
Note that the Rulebook section is titled “Illegal Position”, not “Illegal Move”. I didn’t see an explicit definition of illegal move, so I’ll go with it being either a move that a piece cannot make (Ng1-e3) or one that leave the moving player’s king in check. For that matter, I didn’t see an explicit definition of illegal position, so I’ll go with it being either the specific position and move number brought about by an illegal move, or a position that cannot be reached by any legal sequence of moves. Thus any position with a player on move and not yet having moved and the opponent’s king already in check is an illegal position (becoming a legal position after the king is no longer in check). Any position with a player having two light squared bishops and all eight pawns is illegal (becoming a legal position after one of the bishops or pawns is captured - not 100% true, but close enough for government work).
So 1. Ng1-e3 e5 2. Ne3-c4 is an illegal position after white’s first move and a legal position after white’s second move (and since an illegal position occurred within the past ten moves the position can be restored.
Bf1c4 e5 2. Qd1h5 Ng8f6 3. Qh5xf7# is an illegal position since no sequence of legal moves can reach that position (with no white pawn having been moved or captured). Looking at it that way would say that the checkmate is illegal and must be retracted back to a legal position where a legal move must be played.
Otherwise the specific move Qh5xf7# would be a legal queen move and a valid mate (potentially ending the game before an illegal move claim was made).
An interesting question. My intuition is that the answer is “no.” As FIDE rules violations are not player-claim driven, I would say the arbiter has the obligation to require the first illegal move to be corrected and penalized even after a second illegal move has occurred. (In other words, in an ideal world, the arbiter would have witnessed White’s illegal first move, halted the game, compelled White to make a legal move, and assessed a penalty.) So, the game would be restored to the original position, White would be required to make a legal first move, and White would be penalized by awarding Black two additional minutes. Then, if White makes another illegal move during the game, the result will be that White loses the game.
I can’t point to anything in the Laws of Chess that say Black would not win because White has executed two illegal moves. This is just my interpretation of the intent of the Laws of Chess. I could certainly be persuaded that I’m wrong, though.
Article 7.5.b states that “After the action taken under Article 7.5.a…” Since you didn’t complete the action in Article 7.5.a (reinstating the position prior to the illegal move) for the first illegal move then I would say you could not award the win for the second illegal move.