thanks asmodee for supporting loser

[nccc]

play 3+ player games so no one can concede.

[Strode]

Grandmasters concede (or resign) in Chess all the time. It's actually considered poor sportsmanship to continue playing when your game is obviously lost.

[pabu the fire ferret]

Maybe you need to drag people needlessly through a lost cause to flatter your ego?

you just said it right here ....for you it is not a game that you play it is a win or lose

losing a game for you is not the game so you feel i drag you to the end is suffering i feel i ask you to go to the end cause you said you wanted to play .......a game!!!!

[Meeplelowda]

Maybe you need to drag people needlessly through a lost cause to flatter your ego?

you just said it right here ....for you it is not a game that you play it is a win or lose

losing a game for you is not the game so you feel i drag you to the end is suffering i feel i ask you to go to the end cause you said you wanted to play .......a game!!!!

You are feigning at being disinterested in the outcome, but your insistence that the game progress to the end belies your claim that it's just a game to you. It it were, why would it matter in what way it ends? Just start another game.

And you have not responded to and/or are conveniently ignoring what is mentioned above that many games, such as chess, played at the lowest and highest levels involve conceding (resigning). What is your response to that?

[buu441]

Of course resigning in chess is bad because the OP didn't get to promote all their pawns to queens before checkmating the opponent in a clearly won game.

[pabu the fire ferret]

You are feigning at being disinterested in the outcome, but your insistence that the game progress to the end belies your claim that it's just a game to you. It it were, why would it matter in what way it ends? Just start another game.

And you have not responded to and/or are conveniently ignoring what is mentioned above that many games, such as chess, played at the lowest and highest levels involve conceding (resigning). What is your response to that

you mean you are feigning the example i give about triathlon for instance if someone ask me to play a competition of triathlon i accept if i like it but to like it we need to go to the end otherwise they should ask me if i wanted to participate to a swimming competition..

so you pretend i lie about the outcome i tell you you're the one who lie to yourself claiming you like triathlon


as for chess it's simply not a similar game the goal is purely strategy without any chance factor and any fun at all actually only beating opponent at strategy ( with both exact same hand) so of course no one want you to move your stupid last pawn and king for hour in the board cause the game is finished the only goal of the game has been reach

as other game where for example some of the goal is to build something if you quit before the end then the main goal of the game hasn't been reach by anyone like i said you don't like playing.....only playing a winning hand...

[Jellby]

Perhaps the other player had some emergency and had to leave. Rather than asking for abandonment (which would look like a way to avoid defeat if they're losing), or quitting (which would result in a penalty and not a full victory for the other player), they do the "right thing" and concede.

In any case, conceding is part of the game (as implemented in BGA), as is rolling dice, making mistakes or choosing a strategy... or playing within the time limits, for that matter.

[RazorOz]

Grandmasters concede (or resign) in Chess all the time. It's actually considered poor sportsmanship to continue playing when your game is obviously lost.

Same happens in eg. MTG too competitively, where it's often EV- to keep playing a game you're going to lose, as you're just running time off the clock which limits your chances of winning.

[Meeplelowda]

as for chess it's simply not a similar game the goal is purely strategy without any chance factor and any fun at all actually only beating opponent at strategy ( with both exact same hand)

You may think chess is not fun and need randomness or building something to have fun, but it is egocentric to assume everyone else must feel the same way. As for distinguishing chess by saying other games have a goal to build something, one could easily say the goal of chess is to complete a checkmate and resigning denies the opponent the satisfaction of doing that. You personally may not find that satisfying, but frankly the rest of the world doesn't have to live by your ad hoc definitions of what is fun or what the goal of a game is.

[Grimwold]

My time is limited.
I wish I were a multimillionnaire so I don't have to work and have buttler, cooks and other servant to take of my home so I can play on BGA 16 hours per day, but I'm not.

Winning or losing, I don't care. But I do care to play a game where I could win OR lose.
So yeah. If half game, my opponent has such a lead that even with stacked deck I can't win. I forfeit.
If the game is 98% done with one or two move left, I don't (unless it's a complex game where turn can be very long)

And, I respect my opponent's choice too. In the rare case I'm so much in the lead I cannot lose. If they want to play until the end, it is not my place to ask them to forfeit.


Your problem is that you think everyone thinks like you that forfeiting is ragequitting. It may be true for some people, but that is a minority.
Again, I don't why everyone would have to submit on your view about forfeiting.
As said before wiser and cleverer people than us has deemed that in certain case, not forfeiting is the wrong attitude.

Just learn to respect others' view and stop that tantrum.