Concede or play out the game?

[King Hrothbeort]

In my 2243rd game on BGA after I lost I got a message from my opponent saying that I should have conceded, it is good sportsmanship. I never heard of this before and generally like to play out games until the end even if it doesn't look like I can win. Though I prefer a full game, I have no problem with people conceding whether they feel they cannot win or if something has come up for them and they want to end the game without penalty. What do you all think?

[ViolentSilence]

I think bad things about your opponent, unless you were playing Chess which does have some defined etiquette about when you should concede. You can just as easily run in to other players who hate people conceding as they want to play out the rest of their win, so what can you do? Sometimes by playing out the game you can try stuff out that you might not be able to when the fate of the game is still in the balance, so I'd generally always play it out to the end, and if I felt like conceding I'd ask the opponent if they were OK with me conceding before doing so.

Maybe just red thumb the person you played against so you don't play them again in the future?

[King Hrothbeort]

It wasn't chess, though when I was learning chess many years ago, my opponents would often concede and I never really got good at the end game, so if they hadn't conceded they probably would have won. If it had been chess, which I have played a few games of on BGA, I don't know what the etiquette about conceding is, and I would still want to play out the full game.

[Pennyfarthing]

I would play out the game as I have always felt it's ungracious to walk away. The only opponent who I can remember conceding to me had to leave unexpectedly and we were drawing at the time. It sounds like your opponent was being rude

[GeraldineMerida]

Even if it's obvious that my opponent cannot win, I would definitely prefer that they continue to play. Conceding seems more like bad sportsmanship/sulking to me.

The only exception would be where I am playing an inexperienced player who made such a horrible mistake early on that there is really no coming back from it. Then I totally understand if they prefer to start over.

[ViolentSilence]

It wasn't chess, though when I was learning chess many years ago, my opponents would often concede and I never really got good at the end game, so if they hadn't conceded they probably would have won. If it had been chess, which I have played a few games of on BGA, I don't know what the etiquette about conceding is, and I would still want to play out the full game.

I found an article here that breaks down the Chess thinking
https://www.chess.com/article/view/when ... one-resign

The key part is about the feeling of wasting someone's time by making them beat you when you know you can't win, but as you say, it can rob someone of the chance to practice the endgame. My feeling on here is unless you've got players around the 500 ELO mark and above, I don't think you should expect someone to know the game state well enough to know they're beaten, and I would say you ought to ask if they mind you conceding first before hitting the concede option

[el cosimo]

I got this last games on Chinese checkers that they concede because they know they are lost. Sometimes I think was it not be better To Just play a minute langer that I could finish Nice…

But in fact it isnt a difference as result so they are free To do it. In turn based I garde but in real time it is mostly only a minute time you loose To finish (or 2)

[Jest Phulin]

Whenever the topic of when to concede has come up before, the general consensus seems to be:

Some people want to play to the end, generally to have the full feeling of victory.
Some people want to concede as fast as possible, to avoid wasting time.

These two groups will never be happy with each other. The preferred course of action is to ask what your opponent prefers.

The only real agreement, though, is that the losing player who slow-plays to the end and then concedes on the last move is displaying quite poor sportsmanship.

[ElNSTElN]

I found an article here that breaks down the Chess thinking
https://www.chess.com/article/view/when ... one-resign

The key part is about the feeling of wasting someone's time by making them beat you when you know you can't win, but as you say, it can rob someone of the chance to practice the endgame. My feeling on here is unless you've got players around the 500 ELO mark and above, I don't think you should expect someone to know the game state well enough to know they're beaten, and I would say you ought to ask if they mind you conceding first before hitting the concede option

You don't really rob the end game when you continue a lost chess game since the end game plays quite differently when you have a good position and still the chance to win.
For me it's good sportsmanship to concede a lost game and not waste the time of the opponent.

[ifasoldt]

I'd note that often the etiquette in Chess around conceding goes out the window when playing a timed game (assuming not a tournament with a total time limit). Even if the position is lost, you can still win on time if you play quickly enough-- although the BGA chess time format is so weird and doesn't work.