• Venligst kopier/indsæt fejlmeddelelsen du ser på din skærm, hvis der er en.

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.

• Venligst forklar hvad du ønsker at gøre, hvad du gjorde og hvad der skete

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Venligst kopier/indsæt tekst vist på engelsk i stedet for dit sprog. Hvis du har et skærmbillede af denne fejl (god øvelse), kan du bruge Imgur.com til at uploade den og kopiere/indsætte linket her.

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.

• er der adgang til denne tekst i oversættelsessystem? Hvis ja, er det blevet oversat inden for 24 timer?

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Forklar venligst dit forslag præcist og sammenfattende, så det er så let som muligt at forstå, hvad du mener.

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.

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Hvad blev der vist på skærmen, da du blev blokeret (Blank skærm? Noget af spilbrugerfladen? Fejlmeddelelse?)

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.

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Hvilken del af reglerne blev ikke respekteret ved BGA-tilpasningen

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.

• Er regel-brudddet synligt i e

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Hvad var den spilhandling du ønskede at udføre?

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.

• Hvad forsøgte du at gøre for at udløse denne spilhandling?

• Hvad skete der, da du forsøgre at gøre dette (fejlmeddelelse, meddelelsesstatusbjælke, ...)?

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• I hvilket stadie af spillet opstod problemet (hvad var den daværende spilinstruktion)?

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.

• Hvad skete der, da du forsøgte at udføre denne spilhandling (fejlmeddelelse, meddelelsesstatusbjælke, ...)?

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Venligst beskriv display problemet. Hvis du har et skærmbillede af denne fejl (god øvelse), kan du bruge Imgur.com til at uploade den og kopiere/indsætte linket her.

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.

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Venligst kopier/indsæt tekst vist på engelsk i stedet for dit sprog. Hvis du har et skærmbillede af denne fejl (god øvelse), kan du bruge Imgur.com til at uploade den og kopiere/indsætte linket her.

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.

• er der adgang til denne tekst i oversættelsessystem? Hvis ja, er det blevet oversat inden for 24 timer?

• Hvilken browser bruger du?

• Forklar venligst dit forslag præcist og sammenfattende, så det er så let som muligt at forstå, hvad du mener.

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.

• Hvilken browser bruger du?