Backgammon Online

02-Sep-2013
23:15 PST

Resigning a ladder game.

Is it good / bad sportsmanship to resign a ladder game??

I guess there are tow arguments here.

1. What is the point in playing out a game that one is clearly going to lose?

2. Should the winner or loser of the game decide when he/ she wants to finish the game?

Very often there are "strategic" reasons why the winner would not want to finish the game immediately.

So, does one resign games - or not????

03-Sep-2013
02:51 PST

The problem is that you can be in a game you know you are going to lose but be in a Gammon or Backgammon situation. I wouldn't expect anyone to resign a game if they feel they could get a Gammon or Backgammon loss down to a single loss.

04-Sep-2013
18:20 PST

when you join a competitive game type like a ladder then things like resignation or stalling should not be part of how you play, but sadly its more important to some people to hold off on finishing games to maintain their rank then it is to actually play the damn game.

when i play people like this i either block them or stop challenging them in ladder matches. it's extremely unsportsmanlike . If you're not going to finish the game, whether you're winning or losing, then you shouldnt be playing in a competitive ladder or tournament .

as far as your 2 question points... 1. the point of finishing a game you're going to lose is that you started the game. just finish it. turn on your auto move option , and if the other player is that far ahead then it's likely the game will finish itself with the auto moves before you have a chance to feel any time is wasted.. 2. i dont like to end a game before i know exactly how many points that game is worth to me. if you're down 100 pts and know you're going to lose and want to resign just to get it over with, I wouldnt accept the resignation until you got at least 1 pip in . yeah overall the difference is only 1-2 rating points at best, but again if the person is CHOOSING to play in a competitive ladder then they should be fully accepting and understanding that playing for the full points of the game comes part and parcel with competitive play

as far as reasons being strategic to not finish a game. no. theres nothing "strategic" about it. the only reason to delay finishing a game is because you want to wait until you have another game you're about to win to offset the loss. thats not strategy, thats being a rating snob. there are quite a few people playing the ladder that i no longer challenge because its more important to them to stay in the top 10 than it is for them to actually play the game, you can tell these people because any game they're winning has moves being made a few times a day, and any games they're losing get closer and closer to timing out before they move. that's just piss poor sportsmanship and whether the site rules allow for that or not the people who pull that consistently should be ashamed and in my opinion should be publicly shamed for doing so. most of us are here to play backgammon, not sit and wait for someone who only wants to pad their score

05-Sep-2013
03:51 PST

I disagree with dapharmer on one point - if you're on top of the ladder then i think it's ok to hold finish off a winning game because it's worth nothing, you can't go up any further. Better to wait until you lose a game and drop to 2nd then take the win to go back to first.

There's nothing unsportsmanlike in that - you're just playing the ladder.

06-Sep-2013
07:23 PST

I can't recall the last time a player has resigned a game with me, but I do it routinely once the outcome is determined. That is, if I'm losing badly and it's impossible to avoid the gammon, I'll resign. I never realized that someone wouldn't WANT the win, but I suppose in the ladder Wallaby has a point. I just don't care about position or ratings that much, and move much to fast between games to take the time and figure out which games I should move quickly in and which games should be delayed. I do agree that it is "playing the ladder", I've just never done it that way.  

10-Sep-2013
03:02 PST

...I routinely resign if there's no chance of a comeback, However, I will always leave it until the last throw and, wherever possible, I'll re-challenge the player regardless of whether they above or below me on the ladder. I never 'play the ladder', or think strategically (probably to my detriment), I just want to move onto the next game!

Should I change my errant ways!?  

12-Sep-2013
18:38 PST

This post was deleted by guthers on 12-Sep-2013, 18:40 PST

12-Sep-2013
18:42 PST

There's another strategic situation at the end of a ladder game that dapharmer has overlooked.

I have a game that I know I can 'cash in' on my next move, whenever I choose to make it. However, while my opponent is currently 9 rungs above me, they are also at 'match-point' against another player who is a full 55 places above me, with just one checker to be borne off. I am holding out on finishing my game as instead of 4 places, I would rise approximately 16 if I wait until after they finish. Note that if my opponent wanted to resign for any reason they could do so knowing the outcome is certain - my 2 checkers are on the 1 point.

As regards resigning, I have done so on several occasions where the outcome is mathematically certain, but would think twice in a case where somebody else is potentially in the above position.

13-Sep-2013
14:18 PST

So by waiting, the person my opponent was about to beat also had a leap of 40+ places just before their game finished, so I ended up leaping 29 spots instead of the 4 I would have had.

It's an interesting quirk of the way the ladder works.

13-Sep-2013
14:26 PST

If one resigns a game against the top ranked player - there is absolutely no benefit to that top ranked player. He / she can't move up the ladder.

Typically, if one is in the top spot, one would "hold" onto winning games and only use them when one loses a game.
By so doing the top ranked player can hold onto the top spot.

All other players on the ladder would benefit if an opponent resigned - not number 1.

I agree with guthers in that there is often a strategic reason for not wanting to post a result immediately. That is just the way the ladder works.

So getting back to my original question, should it be up to the winner of the game to determine when he/ she wishes to post the result?