所有案件
{THIS_GAME_BUGS}
#22847: "Allow conceding in tournament matches for games where winning always grants 1 point"
#22847: "Allow conceding in tournament matches for games where winning always grants 1 point"
發生什麼事? 請從下方選擇
建議:依我所見,下列調整將大幅改善此站
發生什麼事? 請從下方選擇
建議:依我所見,下列調整將大幅改善此站
請檢查是否已有同課題案件
若肯定,請「投票」給這樁案件。最高票的案件將「優先」處理!
# | Status | Votes | Game | Type | Title | Last update |
---|
細節描述
• 如果可以的話,請轉貼螢幕顯示的錯誤訊息。
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.• 請說明你當時想做什麼,你做了什麼,然後發生了什麼事
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼?
Google Chrome v84
• 請轉貼未翻譯的英文字句。 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。
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.• 這些文字存在於 翻譯系統 中嗎?若為真,其是否已被翻譯超過 24 小時?
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼?
Google Chrome v84
• 請簡明精確地解釋你的建議,以便讓人一目了然。
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.• 你的瀏覽器是什麼?
Google Chrome v84
• 當你不能動作時,螢幕上顯示什麼?(螢幕全黑?部份遊戲介面?錯誤訊息?)
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.• 你的瀏覽器是什麼?
Google Chrome v84
• 遊戲規則的哪部分在 BGA 版本有所錯漏?
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.• 這項違反規則之處可否在遊戲重播中看到?若可以是在哪步?(重播時左上角資訊)
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼?
Google Chrome v84
• 你當時想採取哪個遊戲行動?
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.• 你想觸發這個遊戲行動時做了什麼?
• 當你試著這麼做時發生了什麼(錯誤訊息、遊戲狀態條訊息...)?
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼?
Google Chrome v84
• 問題發生在遊戲的哪一步?(當前遊戲指示是什麼)
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.• 當你試著進行遊戲動作時發生了什麼(錯誤訊息、遊戲狀態條訊息...)?
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼?
Google Chrome v84
• 請描述顯示問題。 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。
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.• 你的瀏覽器是什麼?
Google Chrome v84
• 請轉貼未翻譯的英文字句。 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。
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.• 這些文字存在於 翻譯系統 中嗎?若為真,其是否已被翻譯超過 24 小時?
• 你的瀏覽器是什麼?
Google Chrome v84
• 請簡明精確地解釋你的建議,以便讓人一目了然。
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.• 你的瀏覽器是什麼?
Google Chrome v84
案件沿革
2020年 8月29日 15:27 • tallfred • 此建議尚未被開發者分析過:
Article 5.1.b of the official rules state "The game is won by the player whose opponent declares he resigns. This immediately ends the game." See www.fide.com/FIDE/handbook/LawsOfChess.pdf No tournament in the world that I am aware of has such a rule - correspondence, face to face or virtual.
為本案件添加內容
任何可能重現這項錯誤或了解你的建議之相關資訊,都請在此填寫:
- 其他同樣狀況的桌號/步數
- 按 F5 是否解決了這個問題?
- 問題是否發生了好幾次?每次都發生?時好時壞?
- 建議將此錯誤的螢幕截圖上傳到 Imgur.com 並轉貼連結。
更改案件狀態為:
bug?id=22847