Trivial Things in Chess

I did not visit Singapore Chess Meetup today, so there won't be any games review or discussion. In fact, this post serves to show the unimportant things in Chess that fascinate me quite a bit. Please do not waste your time if you are not interested in things like chess psychology or application of FIDE laws of chess. ^o^

First and foremost, an attempt to demonstrate the psychological element from a very simple example.

Chess Psychology: When either 4.Bg3 and 4.e3 are objectively similar, but psychologically different

Actually, I had a different initial view on whether 4.Bg3 or 4.e3 makes it more tricky to Black players who see this for the first time (I chose 4.Bg3 while my friend, who is a better chess player, recommended 4.e3) -- We are fully aware that we are talking about the "psychological aspect", and not the objectivity of the position, and that we assume the player with the Black pieces is seeing this position for the first time (otherwise Black won't fall for it no matter what White does here).

I did not do this very scientifically, but I did get a few kids I encountered at various sites like Singapore Chess Meetup, Siglap South CC to be my "guinea pig", and from the very small sampling (around 4), so far all the kids share my opinion that 4.Bg3 makes it more tricky/likely for Black to fall for it.

Nevertheless, this is far from conclusive -- because it is almost impossible to replicate on the same kid -- he/she would have known it upon seeing it for the first time -- it would be difficult to try and do it in a scientific manner. If there are any chess parents or even trainers who don't mind trying this simple trick with their kids, please let me know what your conclusion is ^o^

FIDE Laws of Chess: Does stalemate or resignation take precedence? 
Moving away from chess psychology, let's look at the application on FIDE laws of chess. What triggered my curiosity arise from this chess.com article titled "The 10 Silliest Ways To Lose A Chess Game". Specifically, on #7

In summary, what happened is that in a pawn+king (superior side) v.s. king endgame (inferior side), the superior side, realising there are no realistic chances to promote the extra pawn, intended to offer a draw, but misclicked the "resign" option instead. I actually had the opportunity to ask a local arbiter for his views in an informal setting, and was told that it should be ruled as a draw.

I was glad, to be honest. To me, this ruling will be aligned with how it would have been ruled/judged when one player forfeits on time -- we will check whether there is any mathematical possibility for the player who forfeited on time to be checkmated (even if resorting to self-help mate). If one cannot be checkmated, the game is declared a draw.

Now this is perfectly logical to me. But as someone who loves to dwell into such "trivial" things, I actually have a new question to ask: What happens if a player is in a stalemate position, did not realise it, and initiated to resign the game? If we follow the same logical flow / analogy as the earlier case to judge the situation, there is no legal move for the stalemated player to end up losing, so it should be declared a draw? But if a player is so bad he/she does not realise he is in stalemate and resigned, does he deserve the draw?

I have not asked my arbiter chess friend(s) on this, but this is my current view based on my interpretation of FIDE Laws of Chess. The game should still be declared a draw, and we can base it on other relevant clauses of the FIDE Laws of Chess:

Under Article 5: The completion of the game

"
5.1.2 The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game.

5.2.1 The game is drawn when the player to move has no legal move and his king is not in check. The game is said to end in ‘stalemate’. This immediately ends the game, provided that the move producing the stalemate position was in accordance with Article 3 and Articles 4.2 – 4.7.
"

I think resigning in a stalemated position is still a draw in view of the following:

• There is no saying that stalemate needs to be "claimed" (unlike a draw claim). 
• By logical, sequential flow of the game, one will have to arrive in a stalemated position (article 5.2.1 come into effect) before one can resign in a stalemated position (before article 5.1.2 come into effect)
• Tough luck if you resigned just before the opponent make a move that result in the stalemate (a player can resign at any time) -- I have ever seen this even in professional games, but I have difficulty finding 1 to illustrate right now, lol

I will be asking this and see if my judgement is correct or wrong. In case you happen to know, please share this with me! Thank you.

Updated 30th Aug 2018: I just thought of the following position before going to bed!

A hypothetical question: White just played Qh2+, but before Black made any move, White resigned. To me, this is an interesting situation to think about from the rules perspective:

• A forced (unavoidable) stalemate is coming.
• White resigned in a position he cannot lose from any series of legal moves. (In this simple example, once Black captures the White Queen on h2 with either the Queen or the King, it is a stalemate situation.) 

In this situation, somehow I feel that White should be deemed to have lost the game, since the stalemate position has yet to be arrived. But can this be reconciled with the judgement that resigning wrongly in a "unlosable" position is declared a draw? (Or, is there any possibility that this judgement is not correct?)

I'm curious to try and find out more through asking more people, especially arbiters, for their views. Sorry to bother you guys, my arbiter friends ^o^

Yours sincerely

Ong Yujing (Eugene)
(a.k.a. newbie_learner)