Sorry for the hostility, I meant to say it in a colourful way but not with hostility (English is not my first language). However I do think that some games becomes punishments with some behaviours. I rephrased it better.
For the rest, I think we agree. When you say that we have to explain nicely when the game is finished, this is what I was trying to say. I also agree with you that I see people do it in a non-aggressive way regularly, and problematic situations don’t happen often (a bit more often online, sadly).
Just to turn around your argument - “Oh, this game is finished but I can’t accept a loss, who cares that I take an hour of my opponent, my tantrum is the most important of all”. I think not resigning is slightly disrespectful (depending on your level, of course), and saying the game is over is slightly disrespectful, and it’s ok to be slightly disrepectful when the situation requires. Of course, as you say, this is more than slightly for some people, I don’t mean that everything is ok.
Sure, in teaching games I sometimes tell my opponent that from my perspective the game is decided and that they basically have 2 options now: a) start crazy looking invasions or b) resign because c) just playing a non-aggressive endgame will lead to a 40 point loss.
In non-teaching games against weaker opponents, I do not assume they want to be taught and I happily play till the end. Against opponents of equal strength or stronger (not that I would often have a huge lead against stronger opponents of course) I do not assume I can teach.
And when I say happily, I mean it. I actually enjoy playing go and that includes just winning a won game.
(I am just wondering if I would feel the same on a 39x39 board when the endgame might take a lot more moves. Admittedly I am not so sure. )
My point is, beginners (I’m not saying weak players, since weak players may be not beginners) who may not be yet accustomed to the natural flow of the game, or not know how to navigate certain situations, shouldn’t be made to feel bad, if their opponent can help it.
There’s usually a nice way to say things. If the person who wants to finish the game starts their thought process with “this game has no more meaningful moves, so both me and my opponent would get no more satisfaction from playing it out” and not “this game is done for me, I don’t want to play any more and waste my time”, I’m sure the outcome will be a nice way to say it.
This is a category that either don’t know enough of the game and they indeed need someone to explain to them, or people who are vindictive when they lose and they indeed need to be avoided.
Full disclosure: I use score estimate very often to see if it’s time for me to resign. I’m unfortunately a bit used to it and realize sometimes in games with analysis disabled that my last moves were essentially meaningless. Following the answers I got in one of my earlier questions in the forums, I usually tell my opponents in chat that I’ll just try a couple of things and resign, or very obviously play moves that lead to scoring and not crazy stuff just to see what lands, so they can tell which way I’m going.
From what I read here, I see more confusion coming from a too global question. Answers vary too much according to the levels of players. Everyone has some truth finally, they just don’t talk on the same thing.
For my own, I just restrain myself of talking during the game, even for teaching unless it’s some usual politeness, or I have to because something external is going to disturb the game or unless someone asked me before (like “can you give me advices in a teaching game”) and I agreed (very rare)or unless he’s a real good friend and we know we can do that.
About the time management side, I feel better to simply assume my choice of accepting the start contract and not thinking to change it. It may be weird to follow it when you win by a big margin but there are many other cases you can think about it in a correspondence game because in the same contract you’ll have different views. One player will play blitzy sometimes because he plays 100 simultaneous games while I was expecting him to give more time and interest on my game so better just follow the rule, accept the difference.
I do think it’s important to recognise that there are no “absolutes”.
Generally speaking there isn’t a polite way to tell the opponent that they should resign now.
I agree that there may be a legitimate time to help a beginner with recognising that they are playing moves that aren’t helping them, and this might be an exception. But even in this case, coming right out with the point that you are trying to make (“you should resign now”) is not going to be polite teaching.
Something like “Hey, go can be a tricky game to finish - would you like a hand with this end game to get to the end?” might be OK.
BUT note that the goal in this case is not to have the beginner resign. At all. It is to have them efficiently seal the territories, thereby learning how to do that.
If your goal is “get the game to a resignation” I do find it hard to see that there would be a polite way to ever do that.
I don’t think that there is a polite way to say that the game is over. And - while it might be tedious at times - both players agreed to the rules beforehand and if one of them wants to play out the endgame, that’s well within his rights.
On a few occasions, I asked opponents if it’s alright if we play the yose, even if the game was already decided. My reasoning usually is, that when I never practice the endgame, I won’t get good at it.
Also, a game that went into scoring feels somehow complete to me - all the moves have been played, the game got counted, a winner chosen, the cycle continues.
I started to never resign, I don’t understand the fuss about it.
Both players see the time settings beforehand, and decide to commit to this.
For me being far behind in a game is the time to experiment, try risky invasions where I would play a reduction instead (if I were ahead) or try more forcefully to take sente in endgame etc.
It’s also a nice game of attrition - It’s interesting to see people struggle with the long times of reallife games as they loose concentration. (OGS normal live setting is closer to fast blitz for reallife tournaments here after all)
Well, in all honesty: You both agreed to the rules beforehand. If your opponent does want to play until counting, as is his right to do, and you want him to cut the game short - this seems like a fundamentally rude thing to do. And I don’t think that there is a way to say something fundamentally rude in a non-rude way.
I have a way: with good friends which I bring to the game I did propose on purpose to stop the game and with explanation they didn’t get offended. Even this did happen with beginners who were not friends, but by how they perceive the game and behave I could guess they won’t be offended if I asked them to stop.
So it’s not so general as it looks, if you feel your opponent can agree you can politely ask him to stop.
Now my experience is more based on real life as on internet, and it’s definitely more rare to have any idea with who you play. Few talking (usually no talking) no seeing just playing the moves…
If one feels that the game is already decided, but the opponent continues to play on (presumably to finish the game with scoring, rather than just time wasting), and one doesn’t want to continue playing, one can simply resign.
Of course, some might not like this idea, but then I guess one is more concerned about getting credit for the win, rather than having to continue play in an already won game, so one should continue play if that’s the case.