• Kui näed ekraanil veateadet, kopeeri see siia.

When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:

1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.

In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.

In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.

However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.

As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.

• Kirjelda, mida sa soovisid teha, mida sa tegid ja mis juhtus

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Palun kopeeri/kleebi kuvatud tekst inglise keeles, mitte sinu oma keeles. Kui sul on sellest veast ekraanipilt (hea tava), saad kasutada Imgur.com selle üleslaadimiseks ja lingi siia kopeerida.

When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:

1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.

In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.

In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.

However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.

As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.

• Kas see tekst on kättesaadav tõlkesüsteemis ? Kui jah, kas see on tõlgitud rohkem kui 24 tundi tagasi?

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Palun selgita oma ettepanekut täpselt ja lühidalt, et oleks võimalikult lihtne mõista, mida silmas pead.

When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:

1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.

In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.

In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.

However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.

As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Mis oli ekraanil, kui sind blokeeriti? (Tühi ekraan? Osa mänguliidesest? Veateade?)

When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:

1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.

In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.

In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.

However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.

As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Millist osa BGA kohandamisest ei järgitud

When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:

1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.

In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.

In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.

However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.

As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.

• Kas reeglite rikkumist on mängu taasesitusel näha? Kui jah, siis mitmendal käigul?

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Milline oli mängu tegevus, mida tahtsid sooritada?

When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:

1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.

In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.

In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.

However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.

As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.

• Mida püüdsid teha, et seda mängu tegevust käivitada?

• Mis juhtus, kui seda proovisite (veateade, mängu olekuriba teade, ...)?

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Millises mängu etapis esines probleem (Mis oli selle mänguetapi instruktsioon)?

When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:

1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.

In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.

In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.

However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.

As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.

• Mis juhtus, kui proovisite sooritada seda mängu käiku (veateade, mängu olekuriba sõnum, ...)?

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Kirjelda kuvamise probleemi. Kui sul on sellest veast ekraanipilt (hea tava), saad kasutada Imgur.com selle üleslaadimiseks ja lingi siia kopeerida.

When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:

1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.

In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.

In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.

However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.

As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Palun kopeeri/kleebi kuvatud tekst inglise keeles, mitte sinu oma keeles. Kui sul on sellest veast ekraanipilt (hea tava), saad kasutada Imgur.com selle üleslaadimiseks ja lingi siia kopeerida.

When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:

1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.

In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.

In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.

However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.

As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.

• Kas see tekst on kättesaadav tõlkesüsteemis ? Kui jah, kas see on tõlgitud rohkem kui 24 tundi tagasi?

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?

• Palun selgita oma ettepanekut täpselt ja lühidalt, et oleks võimalikult lihtne mõista, mida silmas pead.

When you have clearly lost a tournament match, you are forced to play out the rest of the game. There are two justifications for this:

1. The winner might get more than 1 point.
2. The winner wants the experience of playing out their win in full.

In the case of certain games like Chess, where you can score at most 1 point, the first point doesn't apply.

In the case of Chess, there can't be very many people for whom the second point applies. It can be frustrating to have to play a Chess match to conclusion for both the winner and the loser, to the point where some would consider it rude not to resign.

However, even for games where it is fun to play out your win, I believe it is not worth the frustration experienced by the loser, and to force the loser to play til they are beaten into the dirt is quite a selfish way to approach board-gaming.

As such, it should be possible to concede tournament matches wherever a win would only grant 1 point.

• mis on sinu veebilehitseja?