Implicitly ended games (Amazons or Go)

I am surprised noticing that certain players continue to play while territories are closed and while there is not any more to hope to win of squares on both sides. These players who are losing because their territories are smaller continue, however, to play instead of resigning itself.

How to explain this behavior? Would there be anything that escape me in the understanding of this game?

It is not moreover specific in Amazons's game: I have already noticed it in the game of Go.

The way to explain it is that the player who is behind:

A) Is not aware that he is behind because he:

1) Does not know how to figure it out.

2) Is not making an effort to figure it out.

B) Knows he is behind, but wants to see the outcome anyway.

C) Does not care, and will not pass or resign because he:

1) Is too stubborn.

2) Is too stupid.

In some cases, he may hope that the opponent loses on time.

in one sense, it _is_ a legitmate form of strategy, because one does still gets credit for a win or loss on time.

but it's sad if that's the only skill your opponent has, yet sometimes one has to use what skills they have.

if you don't mind taking a loss -- resign. (it's hard to throw a game when you're winning)

else if you have the patience -- keep 'em cornered.

maybe they'll eventually ask for advice on how to improve their game, then you can be their teacher (perhaps first teaching good manners on resigning such an obvious loss)

many feels disgusted because a low player or even an average player continues to play even when lost is for sure.

but what can we say when a high ranking player conducts himself in the same manner?

i can understand he continues to play because he/she have something to prove.

i think we are more "tolerable" or indulgent with the high ranking player and punish the low ranking player by conducting himself in the same manner.

(im a low ranking player...hahahhahahaha)

I'm actually more easygoing about players for whom the position isn't trivially simple. It's the stronger players who should most know better. I've got a chess opponent right now whose stubbornness I can't fathom. I asked him why he wanted to continue playing, but he ignored me. Oh, well. At least he's not dragging things out by always waiting 36 hours before moving. (I hope he doesn't start doing that upon seeing this.)

In Go I do see one good reason to continue a clearly lost game - it's a way to learn yose.

Anyway - it would be polite to send a notice about this to Your partner.

I think in any game it's fine to play on if you have something to learn by the way your opponent finishes you off. And in some games, there's a score differential that one may want to minimize. Those aren't the cases I'm talking about.

Jupp wrote "In Go I do see one good reason to continue a clearly lost game - it's a way to learn yose."

If my opponent continues to play in a clearly lost game, and doesn't tell me why, I won't be playing the yose normally, I will be messing around. My opponent is unlikely to learn anything useful from this.

"Anyway - it would be polite to send a notice about this to Your partner."

Of course. And your partner should suggest that you resign and start another game.

Perhaps they are trying to better learn the game.

For the Game of Go, I want indeed to admit that to play the end of game can allow, for the beginners, to learn something.

For Amazons's game, when territories are closed, there is only to count the number of free squares of these territories to know who won. The player who has less squares and who continues to play instead of resigning itself, I think that he tries only to annoy his opponent because he is bad loser.

On another site, when I underwent a player of this type, I refuse systematically to replay with him. On this site, because we play mainly in Tournaments, we have no choice of our opponents. What is so particularly unpleasant is that we can undergo the same players several times.

Hi.

I'm the type of guy that continues playing (with Amazons), even though it is obvious that the other player will win.

My motivations for this _might_ give some of you better understanding.

- I am not used to playing games where it is a habit to resign, like in Chess. I use to play a lot of board games like Settlers of Catan, Risk, Monopoly. In those games at a certain point it can be clear who is going to win. The other players don't just resign. It is the play that counts, though sometimes boring. Play to the official end, otherwise you have some forced victory. My philosophy: finish what you've started. In a football or soccer match when you are way behind you also don't leave the field, because you can't win. You commited yourself to play a game, so continue.

- I sometimes see it as a lack of game spirit to resign.You play to play a game is my spirit. Not exclusively to win. "Oh I can't win this one, so I quit." Not my attitude.

- You can hope an opponent can make a stupid move at a sleepy moment. E.g. with Amazons all territories are closed, but by a stupid move someone can cut off part of his territory and still lose. Will happen rarely, but still...

- If I already have lost, the winning party should give me the 'pleasure' of being totally annihilated. Maybe locking myself in (commiting suicide) with Amazons can be some fun to compensate for the lost game. Who knows. Sometimes asking someone to resign might feel as lack of respect for the opponent who has lost. No interest in the other player when you have won.

So. I think it is a matter of personal taste, style and goals (do I want to win as many as possible, or play as many as possible). You can ask your opponent to resign politely (and motivate why: you are in a hurry to play as many games as possible and don't want to waste your time? Say your true objectives), but if he or she refuses, respect that choice.

bump