Conceding victory

[AKuras]

There are situations esp in 1v1 when theres 0 chance to win. Bunch of games have it.
Play with your friends them. Im playing random strangers that 99% Dont chat and i have no intentions of even playing 10secinds longer than i need to.
And im not talking about bad start or a mistake im talking about when there 0%ofwining

[Jellby]

There's never 0% chance, because the opponent could always run out of time and you could expel him/her and win

[RobertBr]

There's never 0% chance, because the opponent could always run out of time and you could expel him/her and win

Which is precisely why concession is considered polite. The subtext of concession is saying 'you could only possibly lose this game if you had a stroke/rolled a nearly impossible series of dice/or made an absurd error, and I don't wish the first or second on you and respect your play too much to believe you would do the third'. Concession is a matter of respect for the opponent, which is why you don't see top class Chess players flipping the table when their opponents resign rather than play out the last few moves.

[sesc]

There's never 0% chance, because the opponent could always run out of time and you could expel him/her and win

Which is precisely why concession is considered polite. The subtext of concession is saying 'you could only possibly lose this game if you had a stroke/rolled a nearly impossible series of dice/or made an absurd error, and I don't wish the first or second on you and respect your play too much to believe you would do the third'. Concession is a matter of respect for the opponent, which is why you don't see top class Chess players flipping the table when their opponents resign rather than play out the last few moves.

Basically I agree. But chess is an example which does not fit most of the games. In chess, there is only the main result, win/draw/loss. For other games, where there is also a score of how well you played, I see this a bit differently.
There you not only have the thing that a player wants to win, but a player may also have the wish to know the score he achieved. To compare with his other games, was he better or worse than in other games, etc. When someone concedes, he takes away from the other player the opportunity to get his scores.
So here the wishes of both players disagree. One player wants to get out of the game as he has lost already, the other player wants the game to get finished to see the scores. Those wishes need to be weighted against each other. In my personal opinion, in the middlegame the wish of the conceding player may have more weight, as the game would still take some time without any benefit for him. But in the endgame, when there are only a few or in the extreme case just 1 move left, I see the winning player's wish having more weight.

There are probably players who are not interested in their final score. So probably it may be useful to ask if the other player wants to play it out or if you can concede, once you come to the conclusion your game is lost and the game is already almost done.

[RobertBr]

Basically I agree. But chess is an example which does not fit most of the games. In chess, there is only the main result, win/draw/loss. For other games, where there is also a score of how well you played ...

As we basically agree this is a minor point, but there is no difference in the games or on BGA. There could be a difference, but there isn't one. You can 'score' a win in Chess (winning with a pawn advantage is not as decisive as gaining a material advantage of two rooks). On BGA there is no score, if I win by 1 point in Caracassonne it is exactly the same as winning by 50 points.
You can build tournament rules around the degree of victory. Chess chooses not to do that, BGA chooses not to do that. So in this specific context the two are equivalent, You could have a context in which it does matter (for example the Unconditional Surrender league here on BGA does keep scores as a tie breaker, so is an example of where it is done differently). If that is the case the nature of resignation does change - the OP was clearly confused on this point as they thought resignation (like timing out) altered scores - but it is not how BGA chooses to do it, its actually quite rare for board game environments to work this way precisely because it would mitigate against resignation.

[Blacktango]

Since people disagree on whether the game must continue to the end, one solution would be for the table creator to write which way they prefer in the table description.
Other players should respect this when joining, or accept the public red thumb.

[asmallcat]

If I have 1% chance to win, I'll try to grab it.

If I got 0% there is o point staying in the game, wether it is at 51% or 99%.


Why complaining ?
You won ! GG !

Because it's satisfying to finish a game that's close to complete. Concede at 51% if you want but at 99% can't you at least wait a few seconds for me to finish and maybe see if i can beat a personal best, or just for good manners? You save seconds of time, just seconds. Let me finish the game!

Maybe other people think it's frustrating to spend any additional time on a game that they have 100% lost, so why does your satisfaction trump that?

A concession gets you everything winning normally does - a win and the elo. People shouldn't be forced to continue making moves just so you can see your score at the end.

Further, where do we draw the line. 99%? 95%? 90%?

[frogstar_A]

If I have 1% chance to win, I'll try to grab it.

If I got 0% there is o point staying in the game, wether it is at 51% or 99%.


Why complaining ?
You won ! GG !

Because it's satisfying to finish a game that's close to complete. Concede at 51% if you want but at 99% can't you at least wait a few seconds for me to finish and maybe see if i can beat a personal best, or just for good manners? You save seconds of time, just seconds. Let me finish the game!

Maybe other people think it's frustrating to spend any additional time on a game that they have 100% lost, so why does your satisfaction trump that?

A concession gets you everything winning normally does - a win and the elo. People shouldn't be forced to continue making moves just so you can see your score at the end.

Further, where do we draw the line. 99%? 95%? 90%?

As I said in my post I draw the line at 99% ie the final turn of the game. And I am talking seconds, just seconds to go! I was playing yahtzee and had already rolled the dice and someone conceded after I had rolled but before I could click the final scoring box.

Please don't try and defend ghat as reasonable, surely?

[frogstar_A]

People shouldn't be forced to continue making moves just so you can see your score at the end.

Also I'm not asking other people to make more moves. I'm saying if they have finished all their moves and sonthe only move left is one more move for me, let me make it! If you want to concede rather than play your own turn that's always OK.

Its people who need, say, a large straight to win on their own last turn, don't get it and then concede instead of waiting the few more seconds for me to take my turn and end the game.

Frankly that's just rude.

[Ze Monstah]

People shouldn't be forced to continue making moves just so you can see your score at the end.

Also I'm not asking other people to make more moves. I'm saying if they have finished all their moves and sonthe only move left is one more move for me, let me make it! If you want to concede rather than play your own turn that's always OK.

Its people who need, say, a large straight to win on their own last turn, don't get it and then concede instead of waiting the few more seconds for me to take my turn and end the game.

Frankly that's just rude.

What if they saw a real time table that usually fills in fast, and the risk of losing that much-desired spot, in those few seconds your move would take to develop, was high?

Also, I support the defence of conceding, in this post.
The players agree to a 50% progress conceding possibility when the game starts, so... feels a bit weird that someone would be that upset by a concession.

I think most of times, the player conceding thinks/feels/whatever, that there is no chance for him/her to win. Most of times, these assumptions are probably correct.
Why would (s)he support the winner's perhaps selfish needs of seeing the clear win/score of 100% progress, when the system offers the loser a 50% progress chance of ending the game?

Only chance for a 100% presumable winner, to lose, imo, would be:
1. the winning player stops playing and gets kicked or starts playing 180° different (as in bad): sudden loss of internet, sudden death, child/pet start messing around with buttons, sudden emergency, leaving thinking the game would end after his/her last move, forgetting there was still a confirm button to be pressed during the loser's last move (ex. Cowbirds, in wingspan), wanting to lose on purpose for God knows what reason, so starts playing bad on purpose, etc.
2. A BGA bug that somehow, flips the winner. If for instance a BGA crash happened during a winner's turn and somehow, until system is restored, the one losing would somehow manage to expel the winner.
When system is restored, there would come that "karma penalty cancelled" text, but the elo would still be lost.

I think chances of 1+2 are < 1...