Ther are many threads on this subject. This one didn’t add anything new and is going now a bit OT…
I invite everyone to search for “resign” before putting again the same ideas.
And a mod could maybe merge some of them?
For example (not the only one)
4 Likes
Which is a much better formulation of your point then the previous attempts! Thank you!
1 Like
To resign or not. That is the question.
Resigning or continuing to play on is a subject that keeps returning on the forums.
Downhere you see just a few topics dealing with resignation, but there are more (many more).
It seems that despite the many threads it is still not clear for a lot of players when to resign. The Documentation and FAQ paragraph about how to end a game is not really helpful.
Maybe it would help if a condensation of these discussion/threads about resignation etiquette is implemented into the Documentation and FAQ paragraph about how to end a game?
3 Likes
I usually ask if the opponent want to continue when I see that they have clearly won but there are still some interesting moves left on the board that I want to see. If there are only basic end game moves left, I don’t find that it is soo interesting to continue even for practice. But one opponent I asked answered that, of course, we continue and play until the end.
In Shogi, for example, it is considered very rude to continue the game instead of resigning when it is clear that you have lost.
I get that feeling, but even on small classic endgame moves, your opponent may be interested to see, compare how to play them, even if it won’t change the result. There are players who will care less about winning as about learning to play better. Who knows?
I am more annoyed when someone is hurting himself by invading where it is not possible, cutting to go nowhere… In this cases, he’s not improving his view but instead lying to himself. That’s dangerous and in my opinion against progress.
1 Like
Fundamentally you have it right. Use a common sense approach and you can’t go far wrong!
I’ll try and have a go at that.
I don’t mind adding a paragraph about this to DocFAQ.
Does that also apply to beginners? In go, I think not resigning in a clearly lost position may only be considered very rude at high dan level and up. But it still depends on what counts as “clearly lost” at the level of the players.
I’d probably find it disrespectful if my 3d opponent plays on for many dozens of moves (or even to scoring) while being 100 points behind. But if their level is double digit kyu, I wouldn’t mind. I understand that a DDK player may not be as aware of the score or that they may have other reasons to play on while being that far behind, such as hoping to still learn something useful from the rest of the game (I think they probably won’t, but I can understand why they might think that).
When my 3d opponent is 20 points behind and continues to scoring, I wouldn’t consider it disrespectful, though a 20 point score gap may be considered “clearly lost” at professional level. Then again, I think it is not unheard of that a professional game ends by scoring with a 20+ point difference (no resignation).
4 Likes
Note that the position that it’s polite to resign when the game is hopelessly over doesn’t imply the stronger player’s time is more valuable than the weaker’s, simply that it is valuable. The same arguments apply to equal ranked players, though the relative ranks of the players can change where that ‘hopelessly’ threshold is, but also their ability to perceive it.
Is an important point.
4 Likes
Strong players assume that a weak player knows when to resign.
Weak player most probably already considers resigning by move 6.
Weak player probably won’t even know when strong player politely starts dropping endgame hints.
1 Like
Of course. It matters how we reach that, though. My objection is to “don’t bore the stronger player”, not to “don’t play out clearly lost games”.
Weak players should also respect their own time. I’m against “I’ll see this to the end since I’m here” in general, for life matters as well.
As I said, it’s good to know when to let go.
Admitting defeat is a good exercise.
2 Likes
There is a bit of a false premise in the question.
What does “the opponent has won” mean?
If you want to continue the game that means you have something to motivate your moves. If the game is truly over then how would you know where to play on the board? All moves would be useless. Normally, moves are motivated by strategy and tactics. But if the game is already lost, how can you have any strategy at all? All moves are equally bad.
So I would say: If you think the game is already lost, but you want to continue, then try to shift your viewpoint. Don’t tell yourself that the game is already lost. Find a path that can possibly lead to a victory. As long as you can find such a path, then you can continue playing, even if the victory seems unlikely, as long as it doesn’t seem impossible. There is nothing wrong with refusing to resign, but you need to have some strategy to guide you. If you’re just putting meaningless random stones on the board, then you’re wasting your time.
In short: don’t resign, but also don’t play randomly. Always have a plan, a strategy. If you keep playing, then you must have a plan. Which means you haven’t lost yet.
Now, there is a bit of an exception to this. If the game is already in the late-endgame stage, then you can count the exact value of each move, and try to play a sharp endgame even if it leads to a loss. In that case I would also say it’s okay to continue. In fact, it could even be argued that you should never resign during the late endgame. Even for the player who is winning, it is always a bit frustrating if the opponent resigns during the late endgame, just before the game reaches its conclusion. It’s a bit like reading a long novel but then not reading the epilogue.
4 Likes
I wanted to also mention this but wasn’t sure if it was just me that felt this way!
5 Likes
I know we usually say “asked and answered” in similar topics, however sometimes a stronger player casually drops something simple and also foundational like that and suddenly a new understanding opens up for me.
2 Likes
You are completely confused about the nature of the TOS.
The TOS capture, to the best of the collective ability of the authors, the intent of the moderation team and the owner of OGS.
I realise that I followed you into that trap a little by using your word “interpretation”.
In fact, the statements I made that you described as a “generic interpretation” are in fact a moderator’s clarification of the intent of the TOS - which itself exists to document the policies of the moderation team.
1 Like
With all due respect, the TOS is mostly legal boilerplate. It outlines very few of the policies that OGS moderators execute.
I think it would be good to have such a document (maybe called OGS Community Guidelines or some such), but based on my read of the TOS, its not quite as you’ve described in this latest comment.
6 Likes
These are one any the same to me.
If you say “it’s against OGS policy” the response is “where is that policy documented?”
The answer to that is “In the TOS”.
The problem with any written document of this nature is that it invites armchair lawyers.
The more you try to nail down delicate policies that have grey areas for discretion, the more argument you get.
It is actually more practical to, from time to time, describe what the current application of the “broad boilerplate” is, so that people can understand the decision making process.
For example, behind the scenes another moderator said to me “hang about, what you said is not precisely true because of … (details: a particular scenario involving beginners wasting time)”.
This is what happens when you take the written words as rules to be picked apart rather than statements of … policy. To be ruled on with sensible discretion.
(I don’t agree that it’s broad boilerplate, FWIW. Boilerplate is generic language equally applicable in many circumstances. Although it may not appear that way, the words that are in there are carefully chosen for our specific circumstances)
1 Like
Most of the TOS is the same TOS you’ll find anywhere else. There’s a short passage on using AI to cheat, which I agree is specific to OGS.
The passage you cited earlier comes straight out of the Section 230
There are also extensive language about how OGS reserves the right to advertise to users. Again, probably good legal boilerplate, but not really applicable to OGS moderation policy.
2 Likes
Ah hah - we can agree that the TOS serves more than the purpose I stated.
It does serve the purpose I stated, but it also serves a general legal purpose.
Maybe it would help to have a separate document talking about specific behaviour expectations at OGS, so that this “statement of policy” is not entangled in the legalese - since that seems to be offputting and distracting here…
That document would need to be careful not to get too specific, for the reasons I stated.
All it would take is for someone to start writing it, in the wiki…
1 Like
Isn’t it better to just simplify the whole thing to: Always act so that the motivation for you action can be elevated to a universal law and always act so that persons are not treated as means to an end but as having value in themselves.