Czuch Czuckers: To me its more bad etiquette to continue a lost game than to say "congrats" and then resign it.

Andersp: I guess that not too many people will disagree with you.

But if someone asks me too continue a game and to not resign, even though I have already lost, well I might do it, but I cant honestly see that ever happening.

Andersp:  I've always thought it was bad manners to drag out a game that was mathematically lost.  But of course, if an opponent asks me to let the game finish, I will.

Etiquette, after all, is just a default set of rules to follow until you understand each other well enough to know what will offend and what will not.  It's not a substitute for friendship, but just something to smooth the path while friendship and camaraderie develop.

alanback: if an opponent asks me to let the game finish, I will.

You could also remind them that the game already is finished.

Geez, I didn't mean to stir up such controversy.

A player once asked me why I resigned the previous game of a match with only two or three moves to go. I said I did it because I was mathematically unable to win. She said, "Oh, ok." Maybe she didn't notice or didn't want to (or couldn't *gasp!!*) figure that out. Point is that there are all kinds of players with all kinds of skills.

Sometimes it's just easier for me to click a few times than think if the game is really over. If my opponent is online and playing quickly too, does it matter? I suppose it would be different if my opponent was taking like 9 days to make every move, but I try to avoid that kind of game.

Andersp: But what if you knew that your opponent likes to finish by taking all the pieces off? Is it rude to resign despite that?

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?

I like to play through to the end of the game so that I can see how close I was. For me the game is more important than the final numerical result (although I also play rated games to gauge myself against other players).

But I don't get upset if other players resign when they feel they have lost - although I have seen a couple of resignations when, with a bit of luck, they would have been in with a chance!

Cheers,

DK

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.

Andersp: I notice that you didn't answer my question. Would you care to do so? Your own can then receive due attention.

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.

DarwinKoala: I usually resign when I feel I've no chance left; not just with backgammon variants, also with other games. I don't go out of my way to calculate the chances, so I may play on for a move or two "too long", but whenever it's obvious, I resign.

And I greatly appreciate it if my opponents do so as well.

DarwinKoala: Me too. For instance I often continue play to see if I would have beaten the gammon, had it mattered. Although totally irrelevent to the score, I find it satisfying and also instructive (for future play) to see about beating the gammon.

playBunny: If the scoring of the game is such that gammon or not doesn't matter (for instance because the dice is not being used) playing on to see whether you could avoid the gammon doesn't make much sense. Your play might be to avoid th e gammon, but since gammon or not doesn't matter, your opponents play will not take gammon considerations into account. With other words, you would be both playing a different game. Even if you avoid the gammon, it does not mean you would have avoided the gammon if the gammon had mattered (because your opponent might have made different moves).

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.

AbigailII: Ditto

playBunny: Also, wouldnt it be to my competitive advantage to not let you know how you would have done against the gammon?

Czuch Czuckers: 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.

For you it's not unreasonable or impolite to do something that someone else doesn't like. Yet someone getting upset about your viewpoint is wrong.

I think your position is pretty clear. Czuch, Czuch, Czuch. First, last and always.

Czuch Czuckers: Also, wouldnt it be to my competitive advantage to not let you know how you would have done against the gammon?

A daft point like that deserves a daft response. Eat my shorts.

playBunny et al:  All this reminds me of the story I once read about a utopian society that had only two rules:

1.  "Thou shalt not bother other people."

2.  "Thou shalt not be too easily bothered."

playBunny: Even if i knew that my opponent prefers to click til the board is empty i would say "Congrats good game" asnd resign...is that an answer to your question?.   And i dont consider it rude...the game is over so why go on clicking?

playBunny: Yet someone getting upset about your viewpoint is wrong.

I think it is wrong for someone to get upset about me doing anything within the rules of the game!

Andersp: the game is over so why go on clicking?

Because they want you to, and because they may become upset if you dont!

playBunny: Political Debate

Czuch Czuckers: Correct, as in the law where the test is always "the reasonable person". If someone is unreasonably offended that is their problem not mine.

AbigailII: your opponents play will not take gammon considerations into account.

Is that really true? Do you start playing doolally moves if your opponent has already lost or do you continue playing consistently? If you continue playing consistently, how many times are the moves the same between gammon go and merely winning? It's not zero percent, is it?

It's fun when playing a bot to see if you might get a backgammon but, unfortunately, if the match is already lost then they move randomly and don't seek to avoid the backgammon. A human opponent is very unlikely to do so. They will move out of your home just because they can - because it avoids the virtual backgammon. Yet if they leave the pieces there and lose by a backgammon, it will still tend to be intentional. People don't often do random.

Conversely if a human opponent is playing on, even if they have won, there's a high chance that they will play to see if they can get the gammon, just as the loser is playing to see whether they can avoid it. It's a mini competition above and beyond the game itself. Call it fun, call it foolishness, call it what you like. Bots don't give a damn about such things, they can't understand the point. So, it would seem, is the case for certain humans. The bots, however, don't feel a need to argue that the funsters are wrong!

Even if you avoid the gammon, it does not mean you would have avoided the gammon if the gammon had mattered (because your opponent might have made different moves).

Granted, they might be making different moves. In a bearoff situation that's how likely? But anyway, if they might then they might not, and might not is more likely if you're playing a human of the kind outlined above. And if they might not then the exercise is not fruitless.

Andersp: Would your opponent think it rude?

Czuch Czuckers: I think it is wrong for someone to get upset about me doing anything within the rules of the game!

The rules, the rules. Yes, the traffic warden mentality blossoms wherever there are rule books. Being human needs much, much more than the ability to following rule books, Czuch.

playBunny: Dont think so

playBunny: Answer this then.... Do you think it is rude for someone to use their whole allotted time limit for every move in a game, even if they have the ability to play them faster? What if I asked them to play faster because I prefer it? Does that make a difference? If they are asked and still refuse, would you defend my right to get upset about it?

Andersp: If you do something against the wishes of another it's very convenient to imagine that they won't take offence. Very convenient indeed.

O K, you guys are discussing about just those last two moves? That's making me a laugh.

First, as long as players (also like me, sorry about that) do not resign, please don't complain. If fact, I play BG games so fast that I forget the option to resign. In other games, however, I resign every lost position because I have to look at the game board first :). I think a large number of players here play BG games that way.

Second, come on! You already won that game, and the opponent just plays it out. O well, you are a Brain Rook member, so what does that extra game count to you?

am i the only one who thinks that Play Bunny is joking? :)

grenv: The reason to finish a jigsaw is to look at the picture I assume, perhaps show to others?

No, the purpose is merely to discover the position of the pieces. The finished article doesn't matter at all. It's meaningless and therefore pointless to waste time putting the last few pieces in place. If you want to see the picture then look at the box. it doesn't have all those quiggly lines on it for a start!

Anyway this is clearly an aesthetic endeavor, whereas a game of backgammon is a contest.

Ah, I see. So there's no possiblity that someone else could find backgammon to be anything other than a contest which has a rigidly defined ending point?

Admit it, grenv, this is your way and not the only way. What do you gain by refusing to see other people as individuals not from your mould?</i>

playBunny: So there's no possiblity that someone else could find backgammon to be anything other than a contest which has a rigidly defined ending point?

When someone is playing a rated game, yes that is correct!

Andersp: do you think its a good idea that we ask Fencer if he can give us an option to add a "dont resign mark" to our nickname?

Asking Fencer for anything to do with backgammon is a long and hard struggle. In this instance we can ask as long as it "we" means Andersp!

....i've rsigned many games and no one has complained so why should i think that they are offended?

For you there's every reason to think that not one of them is even the slightest bit offended, ever. That even includes the ones who you know, for a fact, would prefer to play on (they being the ones that we've been discussing).

playBunny: "Even with a friendly greeting, I am very unlikely to accept Backgammon invitations."

playBunny: There is only one (1) person on BK i know who wants to continue playing and she is sitting behind me LOL

Andersp: "Even with a friendly greeting, I am very unlikely to accept Backgammon invitations."

That's from my profile, for those that don't know. You've quoted it out of context, Anders, which is quite inconsiderate of you.

The full quote is: I consider it rude if I don't know you and you invite me to a match yet say nothing in the invitation. I will ignore it until you take it away. ...... Even with a friendly greeting, I am very unlikely to accept Backgammon invitations.

And, people being people, some will take it personally and be offended, even though it expresses my general preference for not playing Backgammon.

Also from my profile: Check out the Play Bunny of the Month for May 1999. Isn't she a cutey? :-D

People being people, some will take personal offense to that.

Anders, your point is...?

grenv: as in the law where the test is always "the reasonable person". If someone is unreasonably offended that is their problem not mine.

In Law we don't have the plaintiff acting as prosecutor, witnesses and judge as well. Whose definition of "reasonable" is the reasonable one here?

Czuch Czuckers: Answer this then.... Do you think ...

Nope, I won't answer that then or even now. It's a whole new topic. Repost it tomorrow.

playBunny: Thank you, I was beginning to think you had blocked me

playBunny: I don't think you're saying anything meaningful here. Yes, this is my way.. I resign in a lost position. I never said others had to do the same.

On the contrary you are saying that others might be offended at my actions and request that I play out the game. Wouldn't this be a case of them asking me to do it their way, not the other way around?

Since you're smart enough to realize this, you must in fact be joking and/or enjoying a silly argument.

Andersp: To me its more rude to not accept a friendly invitation on a gamesite

Really? You feel obliged to play any game that someone sends an friendly invitation for, regardless of whether you want to play that kind of game or not??

playBunny: Oh im sorry i misunderstood...so you accept a friendly invitation for backgammon?  think you should add that to your profile