Is there any illegal check mates ?

Is there any rule on this or is it just one of those things ? ,Sorry about the explanation being so bad but I find it hard to use the proper teminology when describing moves and positions ,and sorry about my spelling ,I know I must have made lots of mistakes but I guess I'm just not the sharpest ;-)  ,But other than that I think this is a very interesting position or circumstance for debate ?

good point but dont worry its checkmate:) i guess its justified with the fact that blacks king goes down first

rook moves a7, king takes rook then bishop takes king. game over.

It is checkmate.  We could look at this two ways:

1. Let's presume that the rules of chess are exactly what they are.  White plays Ra7+.  Is it mate?  That depends on whether black's king can move out of check, or whether the checking piece (the rook) can be taken legally by one of black's pieces.  Black cannot move Kb8 or Kb7 as those would both place the king in check - illegal.  The only piece able to capture the rook at a7 is black's king - but since that capture would place the king in check from the bishop, it too is disallowed.  So, mate.

2. Now, what if we allow an alternative set of rules, wherein it is permissible that a player makes a move which allows his king to be put in check (I'll use ++ to indicate this kind of self-check move).  This applies to both players - very important!  Let's see what would happen in the game above... If white plays Ra7+ and black captures with the king Kxa7++, then white takes the king with Bxa7++, putting his own king in check from black's rook... but then, what, black plays Rxc3 and takes white's king?  How? - the game is already over!!

The point is, the rules of chess simplify the above situation, but they do not change the outcome of a game regardless of whether the self-check rule is in effect or not (except for the fact of stalemate - self-checking would negate the possibility of a stalemate, I believe).

I don't think, you get what I'm saying. If the Ra7+ move is followed by a Ka7, the king isn't really moving into check, because the white bishop is pre-occupied with defending his own king and should be powerless to attack the black one. I understand that the rules are the rules, but sometimes when you are designing a game it's impossible to think out every senario to make rules for.

GM Larry Evans said it succinctly: "Check must be respected." After 1. Ra7+, the Black King absolutely must not capture the Rook on a7, because the Bishop on e3 is guarding it. The fact that the Bishop on e3 is itself pinned to the White King is irrelevant. The King cannot capture the Rook on a7, or else it would be placing itself in the scope of the e3-Bishop, which can never happen. A pinned piece is often thought of as a "useless" piece, because it doesn't really defend. Your above example shows that this isn't quite true. Even a pinned piece successfully defends its ally pieces if the attacker is the opposing King.

the point of chess is to be the first to capture/kill your opponents king.  with the black king taking white's rook on a7 leaves black's king open to be taken by white's bishop now once black's king falls game over so it doesn't matter if black's rook could take white's king the game is already over and if it's not over then the ultimate goal of the game can't be to capture your opponents king.

Thanks everyone for your input, I do realize its checkmate, the game above is a game I actually played and won, but I felt as if I won unfairly, I suppose it's a case of having your cake and eating it :-)  

 But his point is that the bishop can't take the king because it's pinned to it's own king.

 But his point is that the bishop could NOT take the king because It's pinned to it's own king.

But one of the rules of chess is you can't move your king into check, therefor on black's move if he chose to take the rook with his king he is putting his king in the line of fire of the bishop so on white's move bishop takes black king game over.  At all times the king needs to be safe otherwise its game over, first king to be captured game over...therefor black using the king to take the rook leads the black king to fall first white wins game over, the bishop being pinned is no longer relavent as the game is over.

I guess the way to think of it, as others have said with more eloquence but less brevity, if Kxa7 Bxa7 the black king gets blown away first, and its game over.

If black is permitted to put his king in check by taking white's rook...

then white is also permitted to put his king in check by moving the bishop to capture black's king.

You can't allow moving into check (whether the king moves, or another piece reveals the check) for one player, but not the other!  As long as both players are allowed to move into check, or both are disallowed to do so - the outcome is the same either way.

I think the bishop zaps the king with mind bullets (telekinesis, Kyle) and all the black pieces go to sleep as the bishop walks over to the dead king.

It's not a draw. The moment the black king is captured his kingdom collapses and the rook aiming at the white king is rendered ineffective. white wins.

This reminds me of the blonde who caught her guy cheating. She pulls a gun out of her purse and puts it to her head.

"Honey, stop!", he shouts. "Don't do it!"

"Shut up," she says, "You're next."

But my point is that if a piece that cannot move cannot give check, then a piece that cannot move cannot support a piece that gives check.

But all this discussion is all very well. Can anyone point to an official rule that covers the point?

It's obvious! The black king is checkmated...done. Black king is in check and cannot move, plus no other black pice can capture whites rook. So simple.