Conceding victory

[sesc]

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?

I usually play turn-based games. And it happens there also, that a player concedes in the last move of the game. There is no harm in keeping that table alive until the last move is made.

Also, I would still say, chess is a bit different than other games here. In chess, the official rules actually consider a player to resign as a valid end of the game: Article 5.1b from the FIDE rules say: "The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game."

I have not seen any such rule in other games. So for chess, resigning or conceding is part of the game rules, for other games it is basically some kind of meta-rule which is not part of the official rules.

[Ze Monstah]

I usually play turn-based games. And it happens there also, that a player concedes in the last move of the game. There is no harm in keeping that table alive until the last move is made.

Thanks for specifying this...
But I was obviously debating on Frogstar's comment, which was only referring to Real Time Games.

[Nastaa]

Also, I would still say, chess is a bit different than other games here. In chess, the official rules actually consider a player to resign as a valid end of the game: Article 5.1b from the FIDE rules say: "The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game."

I have not seen any such rule in other games. So for chess, resigning or conceding is part of the game rules, for other games it is basically some kind of meta-rule which is not part of the official rules.

Since for most games there is no such official rule, I think the concession should take effect only if both players agree with it (https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=85504) you can upvote if you think that's a good idea.

[AKuras]

Also, I would still say, chess is a bit different than other games here. In chess, the official rules actually consider a player to resign as a valid end of the game: Article 5.1b from the FIDE rules say: "The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game."

I have not seen any such rule in other games. So for chess, resigning or conceding is part of the game rules, for other games it is basically some kind of meta-rule which is not part of the official rules.

Since for most games there is no such official rule, I think the concession should take effect only if both players agree with it (https://boardgamearena.com/bug?id=85504) you can upvote if you think that's a good idea.

Its a terible idea

[AKuras]

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.

So you want me to waste ~couple minutes so you could see some number? If you won buy 10 points or 12? No thank you. I rather be sitting at another table already then waste more time looking at another guy waste time thinking whats The best move to win by max points. In real life į can go and get a drink, wc break or what ever untill you count. Here im tk play and i wont sit more than i need too.

[Jellby]

On the other hand, when you join the table there's an implicit agreement of playing the whole game to the end, and not just for as long as you're having fun.

[Ze Monstah]

On the other hand, when you join the table there's an implicit agreement of playing the whole game to the end, and not just for as long as you're having fun.

I think that "to the end" agreement thing means "don't quit", rather than "don't concede".

The end can very well be changed to 50%, if the obviously losing player feels (s)he is 100% losing and decides to concede.

Really now... what's up with this selfish desire of forcing someone to play with you 'till the end, just to see some numbers?
It's probably not their first game anyway, so people should kind of... be able to anticipate the final results?
And anyway, it's not like in any game they play, they obviously beat someone that concedes at 50%.
I mean... a lot of game are more balanced than these extreme "conceding" ones.
So people should see a lot of "final results", many enough so a game a person felt to concede should not really matter.

[yaya17]

It is ok for me to concede a game that is unwinnable. That saves time for both players, it shows respect to the winner (by not hoping to get a win from a mistake) and it is a display of good manners for the loser.

[Ehronde]

On the other hand, when you join the table there's an implicit agreement of playing the whole game to the end, and not just for as long as you're having fun.

Conceding is not quitting. Conceding is a proper way to end a game. And honestly, why should I continue a game I'm not having fun with? I'm here for me having fun, not to suffer for the fun of others.

[frogstar_A]

So you want me to waste ~couple minutes so you could see some number? If you won buy 10 points or 12? No thank you. I rather be sitting at another table already then waste more time looking at another guy waste time thinking whats The best move to win by max points. In real life į can go and get a drink, wc break or what ever untill you count. Here im tk play and i wont sit more than i need too.

No, not minutes, just seconds. Like I said I played yahtzee and people conceded when I had one roll left, it's 10-15 seconds at most to let me have that final turn.

Of course concede to save several minutes at a long and complex game, but like j said when we are talking seconds, just seconds, it's rude.