Czuch Czuckers: It's the perfect analogy and your own logic can prove it.
A jigsaw is finished when you've discovered where each piece goes. That's just like a backgammon game is finished when the final score is known, right? Your idea. There's no point continuing to slot pieces into holes once you know where all the remaining pieces go? Why bother? You know where they go, so pack the thing away and go read a book. It doesn't have to be the last piece either; it could be the last dozen.
I hope you disagreed with that because you understand that the logical view of simply knowing where the pieces go isn't all that there is to it.
It's the same with backgammon. For some people the game ends when one player has all their pieces off the board. There's mathematically complete and there's humanly complete. Do you find it hard to understand? Yet you think that slotting known pieces pointlessly into a jigsaw makes sense?
It's the same principle but in different games. The outcome, as regards the score, maybe different from the completion. Some people see it one way. Some people see it the other.
Who are you or grenv to say that this viewpoint is ridiculous? That is simply a declaration that you have no understanding and acceptance of this difference between people. Your way is the one true way? Sure. And I wonder how many of your ways should be the one true way. [Shudder at the thought]
But the point of this discussion is not about what's the "proper" way to determine the end of a game, it's about whether you would deliberately go against the wishes of your opponent. Do you respect your opponents as people or are they just machines here to provide you with a set of postions to play?
playBunny: Who are you or grenv to say that this viewpoint is ridiculous?
I am not trying to say that their view point is rediculous, its their getting upset about my view point that i find wrong.
But back on point... on Brainking their are several proper ways to determine the end of a backgammon game. One of them is by resigning, and it is just as proper here as any other method for determining the end of a game.
Czuch Czuckers: You didn't say anything about the explanation of jigsaw analogy. I take your silence as 100% agreement given that you're vociferous when you disagree..
You disagree with my use of the word "ridiculous". It was grenv's word but you echoed his sentiment with your "derive pleasure from a meaningless activity".
You talk about people getting upset about your viewpoint. Czuck, you live for those moments! Even so, it doesn't have anything to do with the points that I was making or the questions I was raising.
Finally, you claim that the point is about how a game ends. No, that's not what this discussion is about. Look at the title. "Etiquette" not "Defining the end of the game".
As usual, a debate with you is .... [looking fr a good euphemism] .... the discovery of "challenge".
playBunny: The reason to finish a jigsaw is to look at the picture I assume, perhaps show to others?
Anyway this is clearly an aesthetic endeavor, whereas a game of backgammon is a contest. Once the contest is over it should be ended. Better yet, the next frame should be started so that the moves actually mean something.
Again, chess is set up this way (we don't need to actually capture the king) as are most sporting events (we don't play all 7 games in a series once one team wins 4) etc.
playBunny: But the point of this discussion is not about what's the "proper" way to determine the end of a game, it's about whether you would deliberately go against the wishes of your opponent.
Okay, so my point is that it is not unreasonable or impolite to resign a game whose outcome has already been determined, even if my opponent doesnt like it.