many high rankings cry-baby

how many topics about players who doesnt resign when they are losing!!

i could understand your grief if the game is play directly or with time clicking...but this is "turn base games".

what is the hurry...if a player is being rude or ignorant, just make your move and pass to the other game...no big deal!!!

many of this players that just dont know how to quick are low rankings players, that means that maybe they dont understand what is happening or maybe thay are trying to understand some phase of the game...

let them feel free to asimilate the position.

i am a low ranking player but i know how to quit when im losing but sometimes i continue to play a lost game because i want to understand a life and death situation (go), want to try some moves that i wouldnt dare to do if the game was equal or if im winning.

there are many reasons why a low ranking player continue to play even so they are losing...but that doesnt mean they are been rude.

all you high rankin players stop your idiotic crying and just make your move and pass to the other game...if your winning by that much how many seconds could it take you to make a move and pass to another game...

enjoy life, enjoy the games...or is it that you forgotten when you all were low ranking players trying to understand the game?

sometimes i continue to play a lost game because i want to understand a life and death situation (go), want to try some moves that i wouldnt dare to do if the game was equal or if im winning.

Forcing your opponent to continue a game that is over only because _you_ want to try out some new moves is a bit selfish, isn't it? The polite and respectfull way is to ask your opponent if he minds to continue, IMO (I'm sure most players won't mind).

there are many reasons why a low ranking player continue to play even so they are losing...but that doesnt mean they are been rude.

No, just a bit selfish. Some might consider being selfish as rude...

all you high rankin players stop your idiotic crying and just make your move and pass to the other game...

It doesn't have much to do with the ranks: I'm a low ranked player :-). Resigning a game that's over is a nice etiquette that not everybody is aware of. Nothing wrong with discussing about it in the forum.

I do agree with pitirre here, and I'm happy to do the balance with all people who are complaining about non resigning players.

I really don't mind playing a (Go) game until the end if my opponent don't understand that he has already lost or if he thinks that he could learn something by going on playing.

It is different if a player just delays his loss for strategic ranking reasons or hoping to win on time. I think this attitude is not fair, but you never know... this is just a inherent characteristic of turn-base board games that one should accept.

Personally I'll always resign a game if I think I can't win by fair ways (not pushing my opponent to a silly mistake or hoping to win on time by making the game last 6 months). But even if I do so, maybe my opponent thinks I should have resigned 40 moves sooner... which makes me a stupid non resigning low kyu player ??

For what it's worth, here's my humble opinion:

I do agree that the polite thing to do is to resign once you're confident that you've lost.

However, that doesn't make it an obligation. It also doesn't make it rude not to resign. I've played lots of games where either my opponent or I was hopelessly behind and still didn't resign. So what? If I know that I'm winning it usually means that my opponent is lower ranked, and therefore I can't expect him/her to realize this. If, on the other hand, my losing opponent is stronger, I can assume that he/she has a plan that I don't see.

Anyway, if I'm certain that I'm lost beyond hope, I will resign, maybe not so much to please my opponent, but more to save myself the grief of having to see that lost game time and time again.

So, I guess my view is that I'ts neither rude nor trying to force the opponent to make mistakes. It's probably as often a case of different ideas.

I absolutely agree with pitirre; there's too much complaining. Otoh I agree with klaashaas; nothing wrong with discussing it.

Hi, Pitirre, you had and shared nice comments. But in the future please refrain yourself from calling names, such as "crying baby".

Name calling is a beginning of emotional arguments. A healthy forum is a place for rational debates/discussions. Thank you. :)

Enjoyed reading comments made by Pitirre, Klaashaas, Antonine, and Bertil, and appreciate Pitirre's bringing this topic back.

It is my belief that most of us are referring to those players who are not necessarily low-ranking players, and know clearly their games are 99.9% hopeless, if played normally. So, they drag the games mechanically, hoping that some miracles may happen, as Antoine keenly pointed out ( “….if a player just delays his loss for strategic ranking reasons or hoping to win on time…”)

I cannot emphasize strongly enough that I am not complaining about those inexperienced players who like to play till the end until they can see the game situations more clearly. By all means, if the situations are genuinely uncertain or unclear to their minds, continue to play. No problems.

In fact, it is perfectly fine with me if a retarded child cannot understand 2+3=5. I will patiently explain why it is so to the child.

But if a player plays quite fast and intelligently in the beginning of a game, then suddenly when the game situation becomes very clear that it is absolutely hopeless to him, he freezes the game. Then every 4 or 5 days or so, he will make a mechanical move.

Perhaps I should not say that I am annoyed by players of such characters. Instead, they appear pitiful to me. The situation is similar to those politicians who cannot admit they made mistakes.

When we make mistakes, we admit them, and move on in our life, hoping we will not make the same mistakes again. When we lose games, we accept the outcome, and move on to play new games, hoping we will not play those losing moves again. This is the character of a courageous person.

To whom it may concern:

Playing for winning or losing affects human narcism. So humans get sometimes angry while playing. What's the problem?

Some are angry and there's a social norm in gambling (it's only a game, don't take it too serious) to have fun instead of becoming angry. So there is a internal conflict.

Possible solutions:

- Accept things the way they are.

- Making rules how things should be.

- Searching someone who is guilty and blaming this person.

- Retire from gaming (and the connected fun).

- Trying to change those, who make someone angry with their behavior.

- Talking about anger.

There are some more solutions. And I think that none of them is to blame, because all of them have their place and their time.

So I don't have a general solution for the discussed topics and I assume, everyone searching a general solution will fail.

Thank you for your wisdom, and your willingness to share it, FC Schalke 05. If it is up to me, I will select your #2 solution:

\* Post "Suggested Players' Etiquette" at LG. (No, not rules. I understand that nobody can force anybody to resign.) If Richard agrees, I will be happy to write up the first draft, and then whoever likes to modify it feels free to do so.

Also, your words "anger" or "angry" is a bit too strong. I don't think that any player here is ANGRY. Some of us are just ANNOYED. :)

Wel, in reversi (live) tournaments the number of stones do count at the end. When I'm winning I alwaystry to get as much as possible stones (also against lower player, they sometimes don't have one stone left (=wipe)). But I'm getting annoyed from semi-good players (1750-1850) who don't end their losing games. Could be tactic indeed (getting lower to get more points with a certain win).

When I'm losing I won't resign. I can practice my endgame and try to get as much as possible stones. I'd like to play till the in reversi.

In other games I might resign (where I know endgames doesn't matter that much)

In amazones I count empty squares (very easy)

In chess I play most of the times till the end (they still have to checkmate me)

In streetsoccer I still want to learn tactics, so I play till move 52 even I'm 3-4 goals behind.

Go and hex I don't play so I have no opinion about that

In Dvonn I play also till the end (still learning and practicing my endgame and it's the only site I know to play it)

It all matters from game to game and the thinking of people about finishing it... I don't prefer to create some 'rule-thing' Or 'how to play the best'

Greetz

Tom

fc, i like your words of wisdom. like i said, enjoy life and playin go (or whaterver)...if somebody gets annoyed just because someone else is dragging a losing game too long, i think the problem is not the other player...is u!

like i said, make your move and pass on.

about calling high rankin players "cry-baby", maybe i was too harsh...but my intention was to get a reaction of how silly is too get "emotional" of something so trivial.

i been playin in LG like for 8 months and i played with good and bad players, with slow and fast players, good games and silly games and with goodhearted players and rude players...i played them all.

i tried to enjoy them all.

I agree with pitirre and movielover.... In reversi i will never resign, i also like to practice endgames...since in live numberof dics count....and i want to pratice to not get wiped...lol in amazones i do resign, because there is nothing to practice once u only have the emtpy squares to move in and can count... so depends on what game u are playing is my meaning...

Thanks Tim. English is not my mother-tongue. So take the word angry not as a state but as a dimension. I think annoyance fits really better what I meant (at least in most cases).

When I play, I play to make the best moves. You could simplify things and say I play to win, which would be a fair approxmation most of the time but this isn't quite true; for instance I don't tend to play hamate.

So what does this have to do with resigning? If you are so far behind that you need your opponent to make a big mistake then you are no longer playing the best move. I would rather resign than play crazy, similarly I expect my opponent to resign rather than play crazy. If there is a complicated desperate fight to get a second eye which I don't think works but then I'll probably play that out until I can read it. If I read it doesn't work then I resign. Similarly, I would expect an opponent to resign in that situation.

In real life, about three out of four of my games ends in resignation. On DGS the extra time makes resignation even more likely -- I've only had one game not end in resignation (though no doubt there will be more).

So, that's the attitude I come here with -- You resign if you think that your opponent playing their best is almost certain to win. It appears from the discussion that other people here have a different attitude. I'm not entirely sure what I should do about that -- not play here? not play them?

Perhaps a relevant point... I am good at winning a game of go when I have am ahead. For instance I can't think of a single tournament game where I've lost from a strong (20 pts) winning position. However, it isn't something I enjoy -- it is a lot of work for no reward. If I was ten stones weaker then I might be less consistant about winning a won game. Maybe I would be more tolerant then.

Perhaps another relevant point... I developed my attitude playing a variation of go in which my opponent was allowed to undo as many moves as they liked if they didn't think they got a good result. However, I was not allowed to undo any moves (this was the handicap). In this variation I could never swindle my opponent so I learned to simply play better and resign as soon as I made a big mistake.

Anyway, that's my opinion and clearly is an opinion shared by some others but not by others.

The arrival of Corrin Lakeland’s message made my day, indeed. It is refreshing to me.

I have not started playing Go games at LG yet. But based on my experience of playing with LG Hex players’ in about 140 games, I will estimate the following breakdown:

\* 10% of the players will resign when they see that all the possible variations will fail for them. They predict/assume that their opponents, if not falling asleep, or making terrible blunders, will respond correctly. So they resign. For them, if they spend their time in finishing the remainder of the game, and force their opponents to do the same, there is very little fun involved, not to mention little creativity. They do not value the tiny opportunity that they may still win. I believe that largely I myself belong to this group.

\* 70% of the players will resign only when they have actually played till even a novice player with 20-game experience can clearly see the outcome. Back in their minds, they do not mind winning the games by cashing in their opponents’ stupid mistakes. They hope that their opponents suddenly will become much weaker players. Winning is the most important thing for them. Whether or not winning is done by their skill is secondary. For a few games, I may belong to this group, too.

\* 20% of the players will resign only when they have actually played till even a brand new player with zero-game experience (but were taught the game rule 10 minutes ago) can see the outcome. In these cases, I do not know what they are thinking or hoping.

I think that this “reluctant to resign” concept may be related to the culture of a particular website. If the majority of the players do not resign graciously, it is very easy for new comers to inherit the same habit and concept.

But, hey, on earth, nobody is perfect; LG is not perfect. I still love it. :)

I have no problem with people who won't resign (it takes me virtually no time to make moves in an obviously won game), but in order to understand exactly what you are talking about, Tim, maybe you could give us an example of a game from all three of your categories? I expect I will probably be in the middle category myself... :-)

Marius

here we go again, players making interpretations from other players moves!!

many players are here assuming that if a low ranking player continues to play is because his/her waiting for them to make a mistake...

that is an interpretation, but anyway, what is wrong with that???

when one plays with another person one doesnt play only with the position on the board...but with the person's personality, stamina, physical and emotional charasteristics.

and a good player knows what im talking about.

that the low ranking player is making a "crazy" move...that is your interpretation.

that your annoyed because the other player doesnt resign...that is your problem.

that you dont like this kind of attitude of playin...stop playing.

you know, our personality reflects in everything we do, even on the board...and if that is the way most of you react about a game, i dont even dont want to think about it how you all handle REAL life.

Hi, Marius, let me send you the information privately. :) You and I only played one game, and it ran fairly fast. So there was no impression of mine that our game belonged to the 2nd category. My annoyance only arises when my opponents click a mechanical move every 3 days or so. ( A mechanical move is defined as a move that requires no intelligence, and can be played by a child who just learned the rule 10 minutes ago)

Hi, Pitirre, thank you for your comments. My summary to this issue:

• It is my prerogative to respect a person who can courageously face mistakes and defeats, admit them, and move on to new challenges.

• It is my prerogative to get annoyed by, or to somewhat disrespect, one who knows exactly that he has 99.9% lost the game, yet intentionally drags his opponents on for whatever reasons.

• If my opponent happens to be a retarded player, and even a mechanical move puzzles and confuses him, I will be bored. But I will NOT be annoyed. And I will be very patient.

• In real life, I open doors for ladies, yield to drivers who need to exit or enter my lane, am aware of not talking loud in public places, do not litter, and am grateful to those who are nice to me. I get somewhat annoyed by those who do not. If there does not exist a forum, I will keep the annoyance to myself. If there exits a forum, I will speak up. When I do speak up, I do not mention the identification of the doer. If sometimes the mentioning of the doer’s identification inevitably occurs, I will make sure the message is cc-ed to him. Let us see…., what else? I try to stay with those who are arrogant, and further away with those who are both arrogant and ignorant.

Good day or good night. :)

tim, is your prerogative to do as u wants except when it can damage a private property or another human...so if u want to be annoyed, is your problem.

u mention a lot of examples of how do YOU think the world SHOULD be...but my friend, the world isnt like that.

so i guess, u (and others) get annoyed a lot when u are in the world because REAL LIFE u will find a lot of diversity and reasons people and events act as they do.

continue with your "prerogative"...

You are right that you can snatch victory from the jaws of defeat. If it wasn't a fairly common occurance then the saying wouldn't exist. I have already explained why I think you should resign despite having very little chance, so will not repeat that argument. Besides, I think Tim Shih summarised my position better than I did myself:

"10% of the players will resign when they see that all the possible variations will fail for them. They predict/assume that their opponents, if not falling asleep, or making terrible blunders, will respond correctly. So they resign. For them, if they spend their time in finishing the remainder of the game, and force their opponents to do the same, there is very little fun involved, not to mention little creativity. They do not value the tiny opportunity that they may still win."

Before I learned go, I played a number of games including reversi and chess and I took great delight in a slip by my opponent during the endgame letting me catch up. When I first learned go I had much the same attitude. I like to think I've matured, but perhaps I've just replaced my Western philosophy for a more Eastern one.

However you make two comments I would like to reply to:

> that you dont like this kind of attitude of playin...stop > playing.

Which is why I said I blacklist any player who play as you suggest. I will continue to play with people who respect my time, and I will continue to respect their time. I will do my best to avoid people that do not respect my time.

You also say that people act like this in real life and pontificate on how I deal with that. You're right that people act like this in real life too, and I treat them much the same way. I think your assumption that it causes me problems is incorrect; I find such people drift away from me fairly quickly after I start refusing their favours, in search of 'friends' easier to manipulate. In the end I find myself surround by people whom I can rely on, and who can rely on me.

you know, life could be nice if we had a "blacklist" too.

everytime we dont like somebody attitude we switch the "blaclist" and never see them again.

our wives/husbands are taking a bit long in the bathroom and not taking in mind OUR TIME...switch the "blacklist".

our boss doesnt start the meeting on time like it was schedule...switch the "blacklist".

our mother is taking too long telling an anecdote of her life...god damn it!!!, switch the blacklist!!!

yes, maybe life could be better if we have in our power a "blacklist"...

but it is not like that...sorry.

so if YOU people cant stand some silly attitudes that most of the humans have...tssk tssk tssk tssk...you all most be your own best friends.

make your move and pass to the other game...how much time can it take you?

5 seconds

7 seconds

7.5 seconds

wow, the misery

Pitirre brought us a logical analogy, and it is appreciated. From his analogy, I can understand our issue better. Let me give my 2 cents and analyze it.

Our issue may actually consist of two sub-issues.

(a) Is “reluctant to resign under 99.9% hopeless situations” an annoying act?

(b) If it is, should we tolerate it?

The answer to (b) is already clear to me. Pitirre, who has a higher tolerance threshold will not mind, and will tolerate. Tim, who has a lower tolerance threshold, does mind, and will grumble. This is fine. We all have our own tolerance thresholds, and we can live in disagreement, yet in harmony. This harmony is called democracy.

So, let me dwell upon (a).

In my opinion, when we perform certain tasks, it is better to stay in the original mission of these tasks. If we deviate from the original intent, then it is fair to say that we are not doing well.

Examples abound. Students should study primarily. If they spend too much time in playing basketball, then the situation is not good. Soldiers are to fight. If there are no wars, they should go home. On the other hand, professional basketball players are to play basketball. If they spend too much in reading The Merchants of Venice, then the situation is not correct, either.

Back to our own board-game playing. The original intent of our board-game playing is to have fun and to stimulate our brain cells. Now, these players knowingly violates this purpose. So the situation is not good.

If my wife, indeed, needs to use the bathroom for two hours to do her thing, I will wait, just as a retarded child needs to think about a mechanical move, and I will wait. But if my wife occupies the bathroom for two hours for unknown reasons, but not for the original intent of the bathroom use, then, yes, I will get annoyed.

Let me repeat, the original intent of board games is to have fun and to stimuate our brain cells. Winning is not the primary intent.

Or, I am willing to retreat one step as follows. The original intent of board games may be to win by our skills. Winning by other miscellaneous tricks is not the original intent. Hence, it is nice to refrain ourselves from doing that. :)

It annoys me that this annoys people.....(sigh...)

It annoys me that this annoys people.....(sigh...)

The term annoying is a bit too strong for me. If my opponent forces me to play a boring game, so be it. However, I'de appreciate it if my opponent consults me about continuing a game that we both know is over.

However, discussion about this topic doesn't annoy me at all. Nobody forces anyone, who isn't interested in this discussion, to read it :-)

In reversi (and perhaps other in games), it's usual to completely finish a game (because disc-count is a factor of the result). Even in asian countries, so I'm not sure it's an western/eastern thing. And besides the disc-count, reversi ends after 60 moves. Go games can last forever. Even if you're losing, the end game in reversi is often still very exciting (and a good practise. I think reading ahead in reversi is much more harder than reading in Go or Hex: it's extrememly hard to tell the outcome in a reversi game with only 10 moves left.

Yes, the best move at 10 empty is often not obvious, but I still find it surprising when people make mistakes at two empty. In one of the most recently finished groups in the monthly cup for March, and in the deciding game between the top two, one player made a move at two empty that cost him/her 10 (!) discs and the game. :-o

Go positions that are nearly finished are not always as easy to read for everyone as they appear. Klaashaas, why didn't you play k4 in this game? If black l4, then white k5 threatens both a capture of j4-j5 and a capture of the corner with l5.

I have forgotten what my point was but I guess most games can be hard to read out in the end for many players, even if it is obvious to the more experienced.

Klaashaas, why didn't you play k4 in this game?

err... Because I've missed that:)

But that was not exactly what I meant. I think I've confused the term readong with lookahead. You know that in reversi, looking ahead 3 or 4 moves in already pretty hard (to do it correctly, that is:). Each move, the 'whole' board changes. It's very hard for us human to memorize complete board positions while looking ahead (that explains the superiority of computer in software: they don't have that problem). In Go (and hex), it's not hard to look ahead 4 moves. All you have to do memorize 4 stones (in stead of 4 board positions!) (ignoring exceptions with captures, etc).

Well, looking ahead in Hex might SOMETIMES be easy, like for instance when you're doing a ladder. But at other times, well, you have to figure out what your opponents best move will be. In some positions that can be extremely difficult. But this post concerns the endgames, and in Hex the endgames are pretty obvious, which is why they are never played: You just fill in all bridges and maybe complete a ladder...

Yes, the tactical decision combined with lookahead in both Hex and Go are extremely difficult (tell me about it.. I don't understand much of both :-/). But the lookahead an sich isn't that hard. I mean, visualizing a position 4 moves further is easy in Go and Hex. Evaluating that postion is hard.

That's why I tend to resign much sooner (but often still way too late:) in Go and Hex than in reversi.

Yes, in Hex you often have to read far ahead to play well, whereas in Reversi you can find good moves without having a long-term plan. So it kind of evens out - in both games you should read as far as it's feasible...

Yes, it will take only 7 seconds for me to respond to a mechanical move.

So, do you mind if I pick up the phone and call you at home, “Hi, Pitirre, I have a nice vacation package for you and your family to go to Bermuda, costing you only $200…”

Then, you will say, “No thank you, Tim, I am not interested.”

It takes about 7 seconds, too. Yet, millions of people filed with FCC to block such telemarketing calls in the U. S. The actual time we spend in these matters, clearly, should also include the time regarding the train of our thoughts being interrupted.

If my mother asked me to come over, “Tim, I have baked nice cookies for you, come on over.” Then when I am next to her, she ends up telling me an anecdote that I did not expect. Yes, I may be slightly annoyed. My annoyance is due to her not honoring her words/agreement.

My opponent and I start a Hex game. The unwritten agreement will be: we both will have fun, and will stimulate our logical thinking processes. If my opponent starts making mechanical moves, there is no more fun, nor logical thinking required. He knows this fact well. Thus, I have the right to be annoyed.

Allow me to clarify something. Tolerance is not necessarily a better virtue than annoyance. Tolerance is not equivalent to kindness, and annoyance is not equivalent to impatience.

If Dr. Martin Luther King was not greatly annoyed by the racial discrimination issue, today black people may still have to sit in the back of the buses. If fewer people in the world back in WWII tolerated Nazi regime and kept silent, the war might not have happened.

The right thing to do, especially in the forum, is to speak up, and to grumble with civility, without using cursing words (such as God damn). We criticize, then we improve. Or we criticize, but we do not agree. Fine. Let us agree to disagree.

Otherwise, what is the forum for? to compliment one another all the time, to talk about Iraq, the beach in summertime? And what is the resign button for? just for decoration?

"If fewer people in the world back in WWII tolerated Nazi regime..."

It looks like Godwin's Law has been confirmed in this discussion :))

tasmanian, thank u very much. i love the game u presented and it tell us that there are moments that "things" arent finished...

how many times i lost a winning game...and in the yose phase!!!

and when i lost i inmediately said "gracias" (thank u) to my rival player ...not because i like losing stupidly, but because as a player one have to take in consideration our atention, concentration and stamina...right until the end.

\_\_\________

i notice that many players here dont go out often...i say this because i see that they believe that when they go for "cookies" with mom...is only and exclusively for cookies.

if it is not cookies only,,,then is disrespectful and annoying.

is like when i out go for my bike ride. i have in my head the route and the things i will expect along the way...but i know that i can expect surprises; good and bad.

what im trying to say is that u can have a vision of what the world "should" be, how people "should" be and how things and events "should" be resolve...that's ok, but understanding that u cannot expect that 100%.

so next time your mother invites u for cookies and all u can see, think and feel is chocolate chips everywhere...dont get upset or put her (mom) in the "blacklist" just because she wants to share with u how she met your father.

eat your cookies...enjoy them...and just accept that things arent perfect, or YOUR definition of perfection.

i love the game u presented and it tell us that there are moments that "things" arent finished

That situation had no influence on the game at all. "Things" were already finished. There might have been a chance, that even if I did see it the move to kill more, I would have passed anyway, just to end the game.

Hi, Sakiko, please forgive my ignorance. I am not aware of Godwin's law. What is it? :)

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

:-p

klaas; "there might have been a chance".

yes, u are right...a "chance" all that one needs.

gracias.

Tim said: "Let me repeat, the original intent of board games is to have fun and to stimuate our brain cells. Winning is not the primary intent."

You have obviously won game, you have shown your skill, you had fun (probably), etc. Then why *you* do not resign when the game drags on, you haven't any fun and you are sooo annoyed? :p Kill that game and start another one.

Hi, xyzoo, my goodness, isn't it about 4 am in Poland now? Did you just get up, or did you not sleep yet? :)

In one game, yes, I almost was tempted to resign, and just let my opponent win the game. My opponent was a 16xx-rating player, and all my stones were connected by bridges. But he would poke here today, poke there two days later, etc.

good point, xy.

klaass also mentioned that most players wont mind to continue a lost game if the other player ask him/her.

i have a problem with that thought;

1) when u agree to a game u dont make conditions to the other player.

2) that the players wont mind to continue an already lost game if they are ask first...so what u are saying is that the player IS NOT annoyed because of the GAME but because they are not ASK first.

because if the game is the reason of your distress; why continue even if the other player wants to...

but if u continue JUST BECAUSE u were ask for permission first; then what we have here is a "god complex".

1: In a recent go title match, the two players both fought a hard game they could be proud of. As the game approached yose, it became clear one of the players was ahead. The other player decided not to resign, but to complete the game. Why? I don't know... Unfortuntely, exhaustion from sixteen hours of playing spoiled the game -- after the game was finished and both players were filling dame, the winning player forgot to answer a sente dame (cutting a bamboo joint). The loosing player asked for permission to _not_ capture. This was refused.

2: In a slightly less recent EGA tournament, two strong amateurs fought a hard game. Again, it was a game they could both be proud of and again, tiredness played a role. While playing out yose, one of the players accidentially put their group in self-atari. Their opponent chose to ignore the mistake because they did not want to spoil the game, but they mentioned the mistake to the player who made the mistake. That player immediately resigned.

I won't spoil the stories with morals, draw your own.

yazoo: You have obviously won game, you have shown your skill, you had fun (probably), etc. Then why *you* do not resign when the game drags on, you haven't any fun and you are sooo annoyed?

I've done so in the past, and I'll do so in the future. And I keep a list of people to avoid.

Hi, Corrin, nice anecdotes, thanks. Abigail, very admirable, indeed. I wish I was able to do the same. But I like to lick my victory with my tongue too much. Consequently, I am unable to courageously do what you did.

Let me hereby share with you all an account that I witnessed personally, not about resigning, but about a player’s courageous character.

I used to be an avid ping pong player, and loved to watch world-class matches. In one match, Warner, a Swedish player, also then world champion, was playing a tough game against his opponent. At a certain juncture, the umpire penalized the opponent one point due to illegal serving (or something). The opponent and his coach went into a frantic protest, thus halting the match for quite a few minutes. The protest did not change the umpire’s mind/decision. That point eventually still went in favor of Warner.

Then it was Warner’s turn to serve. You know what he did? He purposely hit the ball toward the net, and gave one point back to his opponent. The audience applauded. So did I, although I was just watching a recorded tape.

Now, that IS character!! The game Warner played was The World Championship, not LittleGolem Championship.

My fellow players, be courageous and have characters. Good day. :)

i think they care more about their "high rank" than having fun.

abigail, u brought a basic logic that i found strange that this "high ranks" players dont understand;

if u are not having fun and are annoyed too...why don YOU resign, instead to "make" the other player do so.

this "high ranks" players are the one with the "problem" (i dont see no problem but they do)...

why the dont end their misery?

Corrin Lakeland wrote: "The loosing player asked for permission to _not_ capture. This was refused." Could you give more details? When, which title match and who? I'm extremely interested. Thanks in advance.

"A gentleman sets strict demands on himself while a petty man sets strict demands on others." - Confucius

"Self-imposed limitations keep most people from moving forward."

From: SLC

Hi, Ricardo, speaking of Confucius, he also said,

"Jun zi yuan bao chu" meaning: (gentle)men stay away from kitchens.

"wei xiao ren yu nu zi nan yang ye" meaning: only women and petty men cannot be sufficiently gracious to get along with others.

hmmm, do these quotes make sense to you? :)

If you like to quote eastern philosophers, try Laozi. His "follow Nature" exactly applies to our topic.

If we have to age, we age graciously. Do not try to find immortal herbs.

If we have to lose a game, resign it graciously. Do not try to use skill-unrelated tricks.

Good day or night. :)

"Who understands does not preach;

Who preaches does not understand.

Reserve your judgments and words;

Smooth differences and forgive disagreements;

Dull your wit and simplify your purpose;

Accept the world.

Then,

Friendship and enmity,

Profit and loss,

Honour and disgrace,

Will not affect you;

The world will accept you." -Laozi

Concerning Confucius I agree that some of his words put into the context of the modern world might seem very "anti-feminist", however I think it is important to remind ourselfs that he lived about 2500 years ago and in a very different context.

"Bu huan ren zhi bu ji zhi, huan bu zhi ren ye"

"Don't worry about being misunderstood but about understanding others." - Confucius

Ricardo, clearly you are a very knowledgeable man, so let me “resign” from these quote-exchange match. You won. :)

According to your quote, all the ministers in this world, including Jesus, who preach, do not understand.

To tell you frankly, I am not interested in others’ quotes. I am more interested in your OWN thoughts.

So, under what circumstances are we ever allowed to criticize others’ behaviors (not others’ personal traits, such as too short, too fat, too dumb, etc)?

Let me share a story with you all. This story is a little bit gross, but quite inspiring to me.

Once upon a time, a robber was caught, and was about to be hanged. His mother asked the executioner to give her a private moment with her son. She came upon to him, with tears, and said to him, “Ohhh, my son, my baby, before you die, let me give you my nipples for you to suck.” As she said, she unbuttoned her blouse, and offered her son one of her nipples. The robber clamped it between his teeth, and suddenly, what do you know, he used his full strength to bite it off. In excruciating pain, the mother cried, “Why, why, my baby, why did you bite off my nipple?”

“I hate you,” the son replied, “Since my childhood, you have doted me, and have rarely corrected me. You let me roam around the streets. Even now I am a grown-up man, you still treat me like a baby. That is why I am what I am today.”

Let a country be governed by one single party. No criticisms. Let my 6-year-old niece eat ice cream before her dinner, gee, I’d better review myself. When I was at her age, I wanted ice cream before meals, too.

My dear Ricardo, please, we criticize, and we improve.

Tim Shih said, “He who does not have the capacity to accept criticisms do not grow up.”

u shouldnt critize santos' quotes when u rely (many times) on anecdotes.

just an observation.

I think we here are touching/approaching one of the many paradoxes in life, that between diversity and universality.

To try to find a solution to these paradoxes, by choosing one or the other side, is not necessarily the right way. Rather, I think, trying to embrace both sides and accepting the creative tension between the two, points towards that life itself actually is paradoxical.

Criticizing can be both constructive and destructive.

CONTEXT - time and place - matters.

Generally, I would say, it is easier to blame somebody else than taking own responsibility. The "story", I would say, has more to do with 'educating', than 'criticizing'.