Can we stop conceding with one move to go?

[Emerson_Matt]

Slightly off the current thread of conversation, and more geared towards game designers than handling concession in exsiting games, but I thought that this Skeleton Code Machine article about "garbage time" was interesting with lots of relevant points for the thread.

[FrankJones]

Slightly off the current thread of conversation, and more geared towards game designers than handling concession in exsiting games, but I thought that this Skeleton Code Machine article about "garbage time" was interesting with lots of relevant points for the thread.

Good article that helps clarify the vantage point of people who feel as though something has been lost when a game (without explicit concession rules and mechanisms) has been conceded rather than completed.

[tbhp]

No, I don't understand how a chess game with someone like Magnus Carlsen has some cultural effect on me, or anyone else for that matter. Could you explain how this has some effect on me and my life or society? Seems to me that the only people would care about that are those who are obsessed with chess. I like chess, but I'm not crazy about it. The vast majority of people aren't either. Unless we are just some cultural ingrates who simply don't understand the importance of such a game. Magnus Carlsen is an amazing chess player, I don't deny that. But I don't think his mere presence nor any of the games he's played has had any impact on my life or how I play some random game of chess.

That's a moot argument. I explained that it's culturally important, not that you have to care about it. By your logic we shouldn't preserve any art or respect any sport because some people (or most people) don't care about it. That's an anti-cultural take if I've ever seen one, and you'd be the first one to complain if the things you like stopped to exist just because they are not the most popular (like this site you're using to play board games, for example).

Maybe most people won't concede during those events because there is money and ranking (which could lead to money) on the line.

So the only thing that matters to you is money? That's not what this discussion is about at all.

If this website were to shut down, everything that was saved in its systems would vaporize into the void.

That's what is scary, and you aren't helping when you say we shouldn't care about preserving those things beyond the existence of a website. The same thing happened to early movies, most of them got lost to time because most people couldn't be bothered to even think about preserving them. Unfortunately, it seems to always take some time for a population to recognize the value of something that is new.

[Fuchur]

Just wondering, as this discussion is quite heated :
Maybe you could give some numbers so that the size of the "problem" (if there is any) might be appreciated better :

How often did someone concede on you (in proportion to all the games you've played) AND how close were you to the ending ?? Did it bother you ?? Did you communicate with the conceder to ask him for his reasons ?

If this situation is rather anecdotic there might be other issues on BGA which should be the center of a debate. (Perhaps i've missed some posts but i don't remember more than 2 or 3 actual examples where a game ended by conceding and was close to the end).

P.S. Personally i don't remember any concedings but in a few "Through the Ages" and "VectoRace"-multiplayer games where the conceding changed nothing.

I have experienced a handful of people conceding on me in recent weeks. It would still be a small proportion of all games I've played but probably ~10% of just Carcassone H&G games. Only the last two after I encountered this thread did I actually ask why they conceded on the last turn. The first said to save time and the second because I had "ridiculous luck" and that they'd beat me on a rematch. That second person definitely conceded in the final seconds of the game out of spite because they are in the top 10 for Carcassone H&G and did not have any recent losses when I checked their game history.

Thank you for responding to my little survey.

I'm wondering : To lose or to concede shouldn't change anything about the number of recent losses BGA displays ?

Yes, it does bother me when someone concedes on the last turn for a game like I was playing. It's petty and only done to clear out the statistics. I ha e no qualms against conceding prior to the last couple of turns, that does indeed save time, but it would still be nice to see the stats up to that point which was why I made the suggestion bug.

For Carcassonne it should be an easy fix to calculate these statistics any time, not only at the end.

And to someone else's point, why is conceding allowed in 2 but not 3 player games? I've definitely had to sit through many turns of Catan where I was definitely not winning and had to uselessly play my turns while watching the other two players hash it out. If conceding is not a feature of the game then the game should run until game end (or someone quits, or it's abandoned, etc.). Or maybe the concede feature is only available up until the 95% mark of the game or so? All games have the percentage completed in the top left corner of the window, though it can be off a bit for some games where it can't definitively measure.

There are some games where even with more than 2 players one can concede -- the others just continue to play (and the missing player effects the outcome very little). Other games are tailored to the number of players (e.g. AZUL). If someone leaves before the end and you do NOT adjust the setting the rest of the game becomes ridiculous.

[Ceaseless]

Just wondering, as this discussion is quite heated :
Maybe you could give some numbers so that the size of the "problem" (if there is any) might be appreciated better :

How often did someone concede on you (in proportion to all the games you've played) AND how close were you to the ending ?? Did it bother you ?? Did you communicate with the conceder to ask him for his reasons ?

If this situation is rather anecdotic there might be other issues on BGA which should be the center of a debate. (Perhaps i've missed some posts but i don't remember more than 2 or 3 actual examples where a game ended by conceding and was close to the end).

P.S. Personally i don't remember any concedings but in a few "Through the Ages" and "VectoRace"-multiplayer games where the conceding changed nothing.

I have experienced a handful of people conceding on me in recent weeks. It would still be a small proportion of all games I've played but probably ~10% of just Carcassone H&G games. Only the last two after I encountered this thread did I actually ask why they conceded on the last turn. The first said to save time and the second because I had "ridiculous luck" and that they'd beat me on a rematch. That second person definitely conceded in the final seconds of the game out of spite because they are in the top 10 for Carcassone H&G and did not have any recent losses when I checked their game history.

Thank you for responding to my little survey.

I'm wondering : To lose or to concede shouldn't change anything about the number of recent losses BGA displays ?

It doesn't. Like Kaladry said, it was a top 10 player. Carcassonne H&G doesn't have the same depth in the ratings that the original has, but the top players are still winning the majority of their games. While the "I'd beat you at a rematch" is often said by the disgruntled loser of a game, in this case the odds were in their favor. Roughly 75% give or take. Hardly a slight to Kaladry, they're no top 10 Carcassonne H&G player, but a 25% chance of winning a game is better than most players on BGA would have. For to us have any idea whether it was because Kaladry was lucky, or because their opponent played poorly, would probably require a competent player without a personal bias in the situation to take a look. My current knowledge of Carcassonne is far from enough to trust myself to be able to judge it if I looked, lol.

For Carcassonne it should be an easy fix to calculate these statistics any time, not only at the end.

It might be easy to get numbers, though not necessarily sensible ones. It's not hard to get into a position where you have the "superior stats" but are dead lost. In a game like Carcassonne you have meeple warfare where certain key positions that dictate a good chunk of points are contested. In other games it's about executing your engine to catch up in time, such as Wingspan, while also having contested EORs in the air.

[Ceaseless]

Except for rare exceptions like chess, conceding is not a feature. Most games are not made with concession in mind.

The natural conclusion of a game isn't just winning or losing, it's reaching the end state that the creators have defined as the end of the game. If you only care about whether you win or lose, you might as well play rock paper scissors.

Chess is not some rare exception, lol. It's just a regular game, if rather popular and long-lived. Many players like having agency, the ability for their choices to actually matter in a game. When what they choose no longer matters, there is nothing wrong with them seeing that as the game being over and resigning. A game's end condition is one way to finish a game, but it is not a mindless obligation for players to only end it that way.

Playing is not just about having fun, you need to respect the historical and artistic importance of the game you are playing (not to mention of course the experience of your opponent, as has been repeated many times).

If a team left the pitch in the middle of a world cup final because "we are too many goals down, it's no fun anymore", would that be a way anyone would want that game to conclude? No. Treating board games differently is not giving them the consideration that they should be given.

The world cup is also a play in addition to a game. The players are making the script as they go, but it's still a performance for their audience. The players/actors have been stripped of their right to concede in exchange for money. They've become paid entertainers.

Now, I've not been paid to give up my right to concede or given it up through other means. I will respect the experience of the game and hold on tightly to this precious value.

So you are proving my point from my last post. The games you play don't matter that much to you and you are just looking to have fun, not admire them as art objects and respect the culture around them. That's okay, but that shouldn't go at the expense of the people who care, that's a basic rule we apply to most things in life, so why should board games be different.

You should at the very least ask your opponent before conceding what they think about it. If they are like you, then you will both happily end the game, and if they are not, then it's basic decency to respect the wishes of someone who cares more about something than you do.

Let's shift this to a different medium. Let's say you and I are watching Citizen Kane. We decided to sit down and watch it together. However, you find the movie boring and don't want to watch it anymore. You want to leave, but I stop you and say "You can't leave. If you do, you are disrespecting the importance this movie had on cinema." Would you agree with me?

That's not the right analogy. Stopping a movie doesn't destroy the art object, it only affects the person who decided to leave. A game is an art object that, on top of the general game itself being an art object, gets created by the players as they play through it.

So, the right comparison would be Touch of Evil and The Magnificent Ambersons, which Orson Welles never finished to edit while he was alive. We know they would have been great, but we never got to see his own final versions. That's what happens when a game of high importance is interrupted before it can be completed. You're left forever wondering what it would have looked like if it had ended the way it was supposed to end.

And if you're the one playing and you were about to finish a masterpiece, it creates a sense of loss the same way as when a movie director is never able to finish their movie.

It did end the way it was supposed to end, that's what the concession was in the first place. The proper conclusion designed by one of the authors of the game.

Highly disagree. A game is a game. A creation of art lasts and stands the test of time, as long as it's preserved. A game ends and the table is wiped clean, unless for some strange reason you decided to never clean it up and preserve it. At that point though, it's most likely being preserved not because of the game itself, but possibly due to the person who played it, an original, etc. If it's being preserved to show someone's victory, then that is glorifying the ego of the person who won.

In your second paragraph, you said a game of "high importance". Can you explain the high importance of game number 3.576 of your favorite board game against some random person on the internet where you aren't playing for anything?

We preserve chess games the same way we preserve movies and all other forms of art. Other board games that have major scenes in real life probably have their official games preserved too. I'm sure you understand that the preservation of those games in those cases is not just a matter of satisfying someone's ego, but something that is considered very important for our culture at large.

Now onto BGA, since most of the games on here probably don't have a big scene in the real world, what happens on this site becomes pretty much the scene for the game. BGA literally saves all the games, and the players who are highly ranked, or win arena seasons or major tournaments, are considered the best players of the game in question (as far as we know it). Other people may want to watch all the replays of a player who won one of those things. It's also relatively common for people to watch games in spectator mode, for reasons that go from strategic to simply wanting to enjoy the spectacle.

I may not care as much if you concede a random normal mode game I didn't put much thought into, but if someone is to do that with one of the more important games happening on this site, this is the BGA equivalent of someone trying to ruin things on a game's scene in the real world.

BGA saves all the games because it's online, lol. To argue any significance of that would be to declare online as superior to real life, as it is saved and real life, well, not to so much. The act of saving those games says nothing about their significance, just the convenience of the medium.

As for saving Chess games, especially the manual saving sort, there are all sorts of reasons that could happen. Gameplay can be reviewed for improvement, so there's the technical aspect. It's also useful to keeping track of if someone was cheating, it gives the opportunity for suspicious play on the board to be spotted. There are going to be various reasons for different people, I don't see cause to try and attribute it to only one thing.

We preserve chess games the same way we preserve movies and all other forms of art ... Other people may want to watch all the replays of a player who won one of those things. It's also relatively common for people to watch games in spectator mode ...

Congratulations on demonstrating you have no understanding of what you are talking about.

Chess games are recorded. Those games are replayed and analysed with regularity. And Chess players at the level people care about routinely concede games just before the actual winning move (almost every commentary ends with saying that one player resigned, not with a winning move). As people have repeatedly pointed out it is appropriate etiquette to concede when the only possibility of victory is for your opponent to cooperate, as everyone with any knowledge of Chess already knows.

The discussion wasn't about whether conceding is okay in chess (I already talked about that in earlier posts), it was about the cultural importance of board games, and I used chess as an example of how board games should be treated.

Respecting a game means playing it according to its rules, and for some games like chess conceding happens to be part of them, while for most games it isn't. I believe BGA should only implement conceding when it's a feature of the game that actually exists in the rulebook.

Concession is just a default method of accepting defeat. It is not unique to any particular game. Just as it is a natural part of Chess, so it is a natural part of so many games by default. If you want to talk about disrespecting culture, if anything to try and remove concession is the disrespectful defilement.

[mrmivo]

Concession is just a default method of accepting defeat. It is not unique to any particular game. Just as it is a natural part of Chess, so it is a natural part of so many games by default.

It's also the default and expected method of accepting defeat in Go (and has been for centuries). In fact, not resigning a lost game and instead wasting the time of the better player is seen as rude and disrespectful toward the opponent.

I haven't conceded board games on this site because I know it's a controversial topic, but as a Go player of over two decades this doesn't come naturally. The expectation that people should be "held hostage" if they no longer want to continue playing or no longer have fun also feels off to me. If my opponent no longer enjoys the game, I'd absolutely prefer for them to resign for any reason they deem appropriate. Their time belongs to them, not to me.

[FrankJones]

Concession is just a default method of accepting defeat. It is not unique to any particular game. Just as it is a natural part of Chess, so it is a natural part of so many games by default.

It's also the default and expected method of accepting defeat in Go (and has been for centuries). In fact, not resigning a lost game and instead wasting the time of the better player is seen as rude and disrespectful toward the opponent.

I haven't conceded board games on this site because I know it's a controversial topic, but as a Go player of over two decades this doesn't come naturally. The expectation that people should be "held hostage" if they no longer want to continue playing or no longer have fun also feels off to me. If my opponent no longer enjoys the game, I'd absolutely prefer for them to resign for any reason they deem appropriate. Their time belongs to them, not to me.

"Go" and "chess" have different customary actions regarding conceding than thematic strategy games do.

I'll remind everyone that the main topic in this thread was player conceding at the last-minute (and thus neutralizing the game state, stats, and score) AFTER playing past the point where the outcome was obviously decided.

So, for the probably hundredth time, I'll say it again: If the conceding player was actually concerned with saving time, the concession would have happened earlier. Waiting until the opponent is about to place the final piece or make the final move comes across as spiteful and petty, being that it does NOT save time and actually wasted BOTH players' time for no reason.

[FrankJones]

Since Carcassonne was brought up:

Viewing an entire game replay of Carcassonne just to get the stats and score that could have been displayed if the opponent had not conceded on literal the LAST TILE OF THE GAME:

This would be a very tiresome and tedious exercise.

Carcassonne might be the worst example of trying to justify a final move concession, since moves in Carcassonne take literally a few seconds.

[FDHenneberg]

I'll remind everyone that the main topic in this thread was player conceding at the last-minute (and thus neutralizing the game state, stats, and score) AFTER playing past the point where the outcome was obviously decided.

True, but I invite everyone to take into account that this thread has evolved. If people would’ve stayed with the exact topic, this thread would probably have two pages or three, not 23. The reason for me and I guess many others to participate in this thread was a) that there were comments clearly aimed at every form of conceding and b) to discuss if this thread is just for venting (totally ok) or if there’s actually something than can be done to stop people from conceding at the very end - which I dislike as much as nearly everyone else - without abolishing conceding in general.