The Fallacy of W̶i̶n̶n̶i̶n̶g̶ Having Fun

[Goodspeed]

Many. If you think that's relevant, it seems you missed the point.

[s_deboer]

I'm very competitive and may or may not flame people based on their poor play, this game gets me a bit riled up. But I've played with Callen in team games enough to know he does call the resign immensely early, and that is far less fun for everybody as a whole than somebody who stays 5-10 mins longer than they should because they think they can come back.

Part of the problem is the skill level difference in team games, some players don't recognize as easily as others when it's over. Team games are my bread and butter, but I'll be honest they can be frustrating as hell sometimes, and I definitely quit in the first 2 mins yesterday because my teammate refused to agree with me on a strategy.

My thoughts are that if you want to play team games then you need to be willing to work with your team, not treat it like a series of individual 1v1 played on the same map at the same time. I could name a few higher level players that are horrible to play with in team because of that.

[jesus3]

I occasionally get sad cause bad, thinking winning would be more fun. A few minutes later I usually realise it's because I seldom play in the first place and being bad is just a logical consequence of that

[lesllamas]

When is the last time you saw a pro Chess player actually get checkmated outside of bullet/blitz?

Just to answer this (doesn’t invalidate the rest of your points about Go and I don’t think we really disagree WRT AoE3 or why people resign), Peter Svidler let Carlsen checkmate him in classical like a month or two ago. Was all in good sporting fun—you should look up the coverage of that match it was a great game.

[DiscernAoE]

Ultimately, this is just a nishe post from @deleted_user4, regardless of the debate.

[Goodspeed]

When is the last time you saw a pro Chess player actually get checkmated outside of bullet/blitz?

Just to answer this (doesn’t invalidate the rest of your points about Go and I don’t think we really disagree WRT AoE3 or why people resign), Peter Svidler let Carlsen checkmate him in classical like a month or two ago. Was all in good sporting fun—you should look up the coverage of that match it was a great game.

For the sake of showmanship, sure, but that's all it is. In any case, it almost never happens

[007Salt]

When is the last time you saw a pro Chess player actually get checkmated outside of bullet/blitz?

Just to answer this (doesn’t invalidate the rest of your points about Go and I don’t think we really disagree WRT AoE3 or why people resign), Peter Svidler let Carlsen checkmate him in classical like a month or two ago. Was all in good sporting fun—you should look up the coverage of that match it was a great game.

For the sake of showmanship, sure, but that's all it is. In any case, it almost never happens

Using your logic though you might be inviting people to use this against you in AOE3 games if they know it makes you tilt. Top players use psychological tricks I think lol

[pecelot]

Many. If you think that's relevant, it seems you missed the point.

I don't see it that way, it proves the opposite of the initial claim — if your opponent can still throw the game so that you can win it, then perhaps you shouldn't resign. On the contrary, there are many instances, on the example of AoE3, when your opponent can play suboptimally, but still emerge victorious due to the already-accumulated advantages.

[VooDoo_BoSs]

You are again missing the point GS, I am all for resigning when the game is lost, in Aoe 3 I am not saying stay till your last vill is dead, but the point at which callen resigns is not often lost, and thats annoying.

Exactly this - most players are reasonable. If you're in a 3v3 and your two team mates want to continue playing, the truth is that the game is likely not as lost as you think it is.

[VooDoo_BoSs]

Many. If you think that's relevant, it seems you missed the point.

I don't see it that way, it proves the opposite of the initial claim — if your opponent can still throw the game so that you can win it, then perhaps you shouldn't resign. On the contrary, there are many instances, on the example of AoE3, when your opponent can play suboptimally, but still emerge victorious due to the already-accumulated advantages.

On another topic - what if the only reason you are losing is because YOU blundered. If you're suddenly winning a losing game because your opponent blundered - and this is somehow not legitimate - how is giving your opponent a win simply because you blundered before him legitimate?

I'm failing to see the logic.

[lesllamas]

When is the last time you saw a pro Chess player actually get checkmated outside of bullet/blitz?

Just to answer this (doesn’t invalidate the rest of your points about Go and I don’t think we really disagree WRT AoE3 or why people resign), Peter Svidler let Carlsen checkmate him in classical like a month or two ago. Was all in good sporting fun—you should look up the coverage of that match it was a great game.

For the sake of showmanship, sure, but that's all it is. In any case, it almost never happens

It seems like you think I don't know and acknowledge this in my post lmao

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

When is the last time you saw a pro Chess player actually get checkmated outside of bullet/blitz?

Just to answer this (doesn’t invalidate the rest of your points about Go and I don’t think we really disagree WRT AoE3 or why people resign), Peter Svidler let Carlsen checkmate him in classical like a month or two ago. Was all in good sporting fun—you should look up the coverage of that match it was a great game.

For the sake of showmanship, sure, but that's all it is. In any case, it almost never happens

Using your logic though you might be inviting people to use this against you in AOE3 games if they know it makes you tilt. Top players use psychological tricks I think lol

Who said anything about tilt?
In tournament play, it's actually bad for your own state of mind if you keep playing a lost game for too long.

Many. If you think that's relevant, it seems you missed the point.

I don't see it that way, it proves the opposite of the initial claim — if your opponent can still throw the game so that you can win it, then perhaps you shouldn't resign. On the contrary, there are many instances, on the example of AoE3, when your opponent can play suboptimally, but still emerge victorious due to the already-accumulated advantages.

If you meant to reply to my earlier post about the difference in attitude and how respect often seems more important than competition in Go, then it helps if you quote that so I know what you're replying to. Anyway, assuming that's the case, your missed the point. I never once claimed that players never throw games. The fact that they do doesn't "disprove" anything. That you think it does shows that same difference in attitude that I tried to explain before, and that you apparently don't understand the concept of playing a game for any other reason than to compete. Resigning a game you have a 1% chance of winning is "bad" in your view, but it's not if your primary goal isn't winning.

If you want to keep playing until your chance of winning is 0%, then you should never resign and delay execution for as long as possible, because your opponent's connection or PC might quit on him. Or is that where you draw the line? Is that where respect becomes more important than winning?

Many. If you think that's relevant, it seems you missed the point.

I don't see it that way, it proves the opposite of the initial claim — if your opponent can still throw the game so that you can win it, then perhaps you shouldn't resign. On the contrary, there are many instances, on the example of AoE3, when your opponent can play suboptimally, but still emerge victorious due to the already-accumulated advantages.

On another topic - what if the only reason you are losing is because YOU blundered. If you're suddenly winning a losing game because your opponent blundered - and this is somehow not legitimate - how is giving your opponent a win simply because you blundered before him legitimate?

Define "legitimate"?

[deleted_user0]

Many. If you think that's relevant, it seems you missed the point.

I don't see it that way, it proves the opposite of the initial claim — if your opponent can still throw the game so that you can win it, then perhaps you shouldn't resign. On the contrary, there are many instances, on the example of AoE3, when your opponent can play suboptimally, but still emerge victorious due to the already-accumulated advantages.

On another topic - what if the only reason you are losing is because YOU blundered. If you're suddenly winning a losing game because your opponent blundered - and this is somehow not legitimate - how is giving your opponent a win simply because you blundered before him legitimate?

I'm failing to see the logic.

Because mistakes become less influential as the game goes by. Lose 5 huss for free at 6 min is huge, losing them at 10m is big. Losing them at 15m is meh, losing them at 30m is not a big deal.

[pecelot]

Many. If you think that's relevant, it seems you missed the point.

I don't see it that way, it proves the opposite of the initial claim — if your opponent can still throw the game so that you can win it, then perhaps you shouldn't resign. On the contrary, there are many instances, on the example of AoE3, when your opponent can play suboptimally, but still emerge victorious due to the already-accumulated advantages.

If you meant to reply to my earlier post about the difference in attitude and how respect often seems more important than competition in Go, then it helps if you quote that so I know what you're replying to. Anyway, assuming that's the case, your missed the point. I never once claimed that players never throw games. The fact that they do doesn't "disprove" anything. That you think it does shows that same difference in attitude that I tried to explain before, and that you apparently don't understand the concept of playing a game for any other reason than to compete. Resigning a game you have a 1% chance of winning is "bad" in your view, but it's not if your primary goal isn't winning.

If you want to keep playing until your chance of winning is 0%, then you should never resign and delay execution for as long as possible, because your opponent's connection or PC might quit on him. Or is that where you draw the line? Is that where respect becomes more important than winning?

I assumed we were talking about competitive play — naturally you resign sooner if your ultimate goal is to play as much as possible in a certain period of time without prolonging the game too much.

I guess the line would be drawn on assessment of both players' strength. I don't play Go, but in the AoE3 case we seem to be operating I'd say it's rather subjective. I'd also exclude external reasons you mentioned. If you still see some hope of winning, like having an army and a tactical defensive advantage, along with some shipments — for me then there's no point in resigning until the battle is concluded.

For chess, which is not affected by randomness and is linear, I'd be more lenient, actually. If you know your opponent practised the moves to win from this particular position you both find yourself in 1000 times, then it's safe to assume they will do it correctly this time, too. However, if I were playing a high-stakes game, I'd never resign prematurely — maybe my little personal trait, maybe unsportsmanlike, but so be it.

[Cometk]

For chess, which is not affected by randomness and is linear, I'd be more lenient, actually. If you know your opponent practised the moves to win from this particular position you both find yourself in 1000 times, then it's safe to assume they will do it correctly this time, too. However, if I were playing a high-stakes game, I'd never resign prematurely — maybe my little personal trait, maybe unsportsmanlike, but so be it.

on the contrary i think this is a very sportsmanlike attitude!

[princeofcarthage]

GS needs to learn the difference between book knowledge and practical experience.

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

Many. If you think that's relevant, it seems you missed the point.

I don't see it that way, it proves the opposite of the initial claim — if your opponent can still throw the game so that you can win it, then perhaps you shouldn't resign. On the contrary, there are many instances, on the example of AoE3, when your opponent can play suboptimally, but still emerge victorious due to the already-accumulated advantages.

If you meant to reply to my earlier post about the difference in attitude and how respect often seems more important than competition in Go, then it helps if you quote that so I know what you're replying to. Anyway, assuming that's the case, your missed the point. I never once claimed that players never throw games. The fact that they do doesn't "disprove" anything. That you think it does shows that same difference in attitude that I tried to explain before, and that you apparently don't understand the concept of playing a game for any other reason than to compete. Resigning a game you have a 1% chance of winning is "bad" in your view, but it's not if your primary goal isn't winning.

If you want to keep playing until your chance of winning is 0%, then you should never resign and delay execution for as long as possible, because your opponent's connection or PC might quit on him. Or is that where you draw the line? Is that where respect becomes more important than winning?

I assumed we were talking about competitive play —

Meaning tournament play? I'm talking about play in general. Personally when I sit down to play a game my goals, before winning, are to study the game and to bond with the other people playing. Of course it's still a game, so studying it means finding the best way to win, but there is a difference in attitude. Perhaps you'll understand how with the attitude I described, losing any one game is not as big of a deal and deciding when to resign becomes more about when there is not much else to learn from staying in the game, or not much more bonding to do. Often in AoE3 games I wanted to test a specific build, and after I found out whether it worked or not finishing the game (win or loss) just felt like going through the motions, and wasn't the part that I enjoyed.

If it's a tournament game that changes, though.

[Riotcoke]

Just don't play to win and have fun!

[Goodspeed]

GS needs to learn the difference between book knowledge and practical experience.

Elaborate?

[pecelot]

Show hidden quotes

Many. If you think that's relevant, it seems you missed the point.

I don't see it that way, it proves the opposite of the initial claim — if your opponent can still throw the game so that you can win it, then perhaps you shouldn't resign. On the contrary, there are many instances, on the example of AoE3, when your opponent can play suboptimally, but still emerge victorious due to the already-accumulated advantages.

If you meant to reply to my earlier post about the difference in attitude and how respect often seems more important than competition in Go, then it helps if you quote that so I know what you're replying to. Anyway, assuming that's the case, your missed the point. I never once claimed that players never throw games. The fact that they do doesn't "disprove" anything. That you think it does shows that same difference in attitude that I tried to explain before, and that you apparently don't understand the concept of playing a game for any other reason than to compete. Resigning a game you have a 1% chance of winning is "bad" in your view, but it's not if your primary goal isn't winning.

If you want to keep playing until your chance of winning is 0%, then you should never resign and delay execution for as long as possible, because your opponent's connection or PC might quit on him. Or is that where you draw the line? Is that where respect becomes more important than winning?

I assumed we were talking about competitive play —

Meaning tournament play? I'm talking about play in general. Personally when I sit down to play a game my goals, before winning, are to study the game and to bond with the other people playing. Of course it's still a game, so studying it means finding the best way to win, but there is a difference in attitude. Perhaps you'll understand how with the attitude I described, losing any one game is not as big of a deal and deciding when to resign becomes more about when there is not much else to learn from staying in the game, or not much more bonding to do. Often in AoE3 games I wanted to test a specific build, and after I found out whether it worked or not finishing the game (win or loss) just felt like going through the motions, and wasn't the part that I enjoyed.

If it's a tournament game that changes, though.

My assumption revolved around playing the game to win, otherwise there are too many factors to be taken into account when discussing the proper or expected behaviour — humour, time, player—player relation, current motivation et cetera. If I recall correctly, I have personally stalled a couple of games when I believed I had a genuine chance of winning despite being significantly behind, and only one or two of those I remember being tournament games, hence I might not be the fittest advocate for the idea; however, like I said, when I see a small glimpse of hope in a competitive setup, I tend to try it out — and I think that should be the spirit. To underline again: unrated matches differ drastically.

[Imperial Noob]

Remember the New England afk slaughter?

[pecelot]

yeah well once I hid vills from a guy that didn't allow me an emergency pause after which he got bored and didn't kill me, I rebuilt with one vill and like 20 minutes later I killed him while he was away, he came back just in time to witness his last unit die, I got so excited I talked about it on Discord so I'm sure you all remember, basically the highlights of my life

[Goodspeed]

Show hidden quotes

Many. If you think that's relevant, it seems you missed the point.

I don't see it that way, it proves the opposite of the initial claim — if your opponent can still throw the game so that you can win it, then perhaps you shouldn't resign. On the contrary, there are many instances, on the example of AoE3, when your opponent can play suboptimally, but still emerge victorious due to the already-accumulated advantages.

If you meant to reply to my earlier post about the difference in attitude and how respect often seems more important than competition in Go, then it helps if you quote that so I know what you're replying to. Anyway, assuming that's the case, your missed the point. I never once claimed that players never throw games. The fact that they do doesn't "disprove" anything. That you think it does shows that same difference in attitude that I tried to explain before, and that you apparently don't understand the concept of playing a game for any other reason than to compete. Resigning a game you have a 1% chance of winning is "bad" in your view, but it's not if your primary goal isn't winning.

If you want to keep playing until your chance of winning is 0%, then you should never resign and delay execution for as long as possible, because your opponent's connection or PC might quit on him. Or is that where you draw the line? Is that where respect becomes more important than winning?

I assumed we were talking about competitive play —

Meaning tournament play? I'm talking about play in general. Personally when I sit down to play a game my goals, before winning, are to study the game and to bond with the other people playing. Of course it's still a game, so studying it means finding the best way to win, but there is a difference in attitude. Perhaps you'll understand how with the attitude I described, losing any one game is not as big of a deal and deciding when to resign becomes more about when there is not much else to learn from staying in the game, or not much more bonding to do. Often in AoE3 games I wanted to test a specific build, and after I found out whether it worked or not finishing the game (win or loss) just felt like going through the motions, and wasn't the part that I enjoyed.

If it's a tournament game that changes, though.

My assumption revolved around playing the game to win, otherwise there are too many factors to be taken into account when discussing the proper or expected behaviour — humour, time, player—player relation, current motivation et cetera. If I recall correctly, I have personally stalled a couple of games when I believed I had a genuine chance of winning despite being significantly behind, and only one or two of those I remember being tournament games, hence I might not be the fittest advocate for the idea; however, like I said, when I see a small glimpse of hope in a competitive setup, I tend to try it out — and I think that should be the spirit. To underline again: unrated matches differ drastically.

Bit of a strange assumption to make considering my point was that competition is not the only reason to play a game.

[Snuden]

yeah well once I hid vills from a guy that didn't allow me an emergency pause after which he got bored and didn't kill me, I rebuilt with one vill and like 20 minutes later I killed him while he was away, he came back just in time to witness his last unit die, I got so excited I talked about it on Discord so I'm sure you all remember, basically the highlights of my life

You are now known as Lord Vader... OG

[kami_ryu]

In Go it's actually considered rude not to resign a lost game. It's considered disrespectful towards your opponent, since by continuing play you are implying that you are counting on them to fuck up and throw the game, wasting their time in the process.

Is it so hard to force your opponent to throw?

How do you know when you've clearly lost?