1. Yesterday Hou Yufan achieved a draw versus Naka, then in a microsecond of inattention she hit the resign button an instant before her draw was officialized. Under such (not so common) circumstances, wherein the context makes it abundantly evident that it was not the player's intention to resign, such a slip should not be held against a player (everyone knew she deserved her half point). Rules exist to preserve reason, not militate against it. If somehow, someday, we become thinkers oblivous to knowable circumstances, then we can perhaps enforce the rules mindlessly, totalitarianly, automatically. In the meantime let the known facts determine the case, not knee-jerk responses ("She hit the button, she resigned, no half point").
Sometimes it's the opposite. Sometimes they try to resign but accidentally offer a draw, then resign right away to correct it. I didn't see the game you're talking about though, maybe it was a draw.
If the match score were close, then I'd say she should appeal and chess.com should award her a half point, but since it was so one sided, and since accidental resignations are extremely rare, this doesn't seem to be a problem.
2. I saw a youtube video where Inarkiev swindled Carlsen by deliberately making an illegal move, one which purported to be a check, and then when Carlsen moved his King, Inarkiev immediately (in a quite lost position, of course) claimed a win on the grounds (as I interpreted the video) that CARLSEN had made a move resulting in an illegal position. The player who first creates an illegal position should not be able to claim the game on those grounds.
IIRC the issue was, in blitz, pointing out your opponent made an illegal move is an instant win (but if you don't point it out, then the game continues). Initially they gave that guy the win, but it was overturned, and Carlsen won that game.
3. I am glad the idea of claiming you win on the grounds that you stalemated your opponent has died out. Shockingly (to me) it was said that the World Champion endorsed the idea.
The King by nature does not move into check, not even in his sleep. Not only is he not compelled to do, so but is compelled by the rules not to do so, comformable with his well-known imperial nature. It is a basic misunderstanding of the intent of the rules to think the compulsion to move is so absolute that it might obligate the King to move into check. Succinct as they are, the rules of chess, on any sensible reading, make it abundantly clear that you do no have to--indeed are prohibited from--moving into check at any time (i.e. whether it is your turn to move or not).
That said, there is no reason why the person creating a draw by stalemating his opponent might not be awarded more than half a point.
Scoring it something like 0.75 to 0.5 is an interesting idea.
1. Yesterday Hou Yufan achieved a draw versus Naka, then in a microsecond of inattention she hit the resign button an instant before her draw was officialized. Under such (not so common) circumstances, wherein the context makes it abundantly evident that it was not the player's intention to resign, such a slip should not be held against a player (everyone knew she deserved her half point). Rules exist to preserve reason, not militate against it. If somehow, someday, we become thinkers oblivous to knowable circumstances, then we can perhaps enforce the rules mindlessly, totalitarianly, automatically. In the meantime let the known facts determine the case, not knee-jerk responses ("She hit the button, she resigned, no half point").
2. I saw a youtube video where Inarkiev swindled Carlsen by deliberately making an illegal move, one which purported to be a check, and then when Carlsen moved his King, Inarkiev immediately (in a quite lost position, of course) claimed a win on the grounds (as I interpreted the video) that CARLSEN had made a move resulting in an illegal position. The player who first creates an illegal position should not be able to claim the game on those grounds.
3. I am glad the idea of claiming you win on the grounds that you stalemated your opponent has died out. Shockingly (to me) it was said that the world champion endorsed the idea.
The King by nature does not move into check, not even in his sleep. Not only is he not compelled to do, so but is compelled by the rules not to do so, comformable with his well-known imperial nature. It is a basic misunderstanding of the intent of the rules to think the compulsion to move is so absolute that it might obligate the King to move into check. Succinct as they are, the rules of chess, on any sensible reading, make it abundantly clear that you do no have to--indeed are prohibited from--moving into check at any time (i.e. whether it is your turn to move or not).
That said, there is no reason why the person creating a draw by stalemating his opponent might not be awarded more than half a point.