I’ll preface this with a caveat that I will be making subjective statements.
A good way to analyze behavioral expectations and intent is to examine what is typically done, what is typically expected, what the perceptions and effects of these actions are, and the reasons given for such actions.
Chess:
It is well-understood and agreed upon and accepted that conceding in the face of imminent checkmate (or perhaps insurmountable material disadvantage) is:
1) Polite and gracious
2) An acknowledgement of a game well played by the opponent
3) Commonplace in most or nearly all situations in which a concession is applicable.
There is no significant loss of information when a concession is made. Someone mentioned that BGA does keep stats for chess, but the stats mentioned are not any I have ever seen or heard referenced in many years of playing and studying chess. There is no loss of end-game scoring information, because chess does not have point-scoring from a variety of sources. There are no cards. There is no scenario in which someone would be wondering whether a specific play or sequence of plays generated the expected number of points.
That being said, if a player conceded, and the winning player doesn’t see the imminent checkmate, would it be unreasonable to ask, “can we play this out? I don’t see what you’re seeing, and I would appreciate the practice finishing a mate sequence”. Or, “I realize I am way ahead in material, but I struggle at end-game sometimes by creating a stalemate situation. Can we play on so I can gain additional experience and practice?”
Obviously, the opponent could refuse and just say, “No. I cannot win, and I have no desire to waste any more time.” I can’t foresee that happening in a “real-life” setting, and if it did, those two players might not be playing any more games together in the future.
Other games, especially thematic strategy games involving cards and multiple scoring categories:
Simply based on how often one decision occurs versus the other, it seems by convention and societal agreement (not universal agreement, but a significant majority) that conceding right at the end is not appropriate, and is not perceived as gracious and congratulatory the way it is in chess. The very fact that few people do this, combined with the high number of people expressing legitimate reasons for wishing the end-game position and scoring and statistics to be shown, indicates that such a behavior is, at minimum, questionable, and can easily be perceived as lacking in sportsmanship or consideration for others.
It is not unreasonable for someone who has spent significant time and energy playing a game to wish to see the final situation, score, and statistics when the game is just about over anyway. Lengthy explanations have been given for the various valuable information that is lost when the game is conceded right at the end rather than finished naturally.
In a “real-life” game, refusing to finish a game at the end-stage would not be well-received, and would undoubtedly come across as poor sportsmanship. Doing this online negates some of the great benefits of a site like BGA that automates the scoring, offers statistics, and displays the end-game state in a manner that allows any players (including those not in the game but viewing the replay) to gain useful information.
BGA in general seems to encourage playing games to completion, and sems to encourage study and review of games (hence the open profiles and open access to the played games of any player). BGA is unique among any gaming sites I have utilized in this regard. The options to review and study and learn, and view valuable statistics, is not a combination I have encountered elsewhere.
If everyone conceded at the end, all this valuable information would be lost, and for what?
The two most common reasons given have been:
1) “One minute of my time is more important than [any number of perceived benefits to finishing the game].”
2) “I don’t want to see how badly I got beaten by, and I think it is ego-stroking by my opponent to wish to see that same information.”
Except: It is not ego-stroking. The reasons for wishing to see this information are numerous and have been stated numerous times. And, the losing player can still complete the game and “not see how badly I lost by” by simply closing the screen once it starts to roll the end-game credits, so to speak.
The time argument in number 1 is questionable. Are people really truly in a situation in which they desperately need those one or two minutes for something else? And conveniently enough, it only happens when they are about to lose a game, and not when they are about to win a game? And, they needed exactly that one or two minutes – not 5 or 10 minutes, in which case they could have conceded earlier and saved everyone more time if the end result was going to be a conceded game anyway with no end-game position or stats or soring? That’s really straining credibility.
And what sort of society would we have if everyone adopted the approach of “One minute of my time is more important than [anything or anyone else]”? We don’t need to wonder, because we have all seen it. This attitude and behavior leads to arguments, fights, ill-feelings, and a general dysfunction of society.
