• Lūdzu nokopē/ielīmē kļūdas ziņu, ko redzi ekrānā, ja tāda ir.

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.

• Lūdzu paskaidro, ko Tu vēlējies darīt, ko Tu izdarīji un kas notika

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu iekopē tekstu, kas redzams angļu, nevis tavā valodā. Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.

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.

• Vai šis teksts ir pieejams tulkošanas sistēmā? Ja jā, vai tas ir ticis tulkots pēdējo 24 stundu laikā?

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu, paskaidrojiet savu ieteikumu precīzi un kodolīgi, lai tas būtu pēc iespējas vieglāk saprotams.

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Kas tika attēlots ekrānā, kad Tu tiki bloķēts (tukšs ekrāns? Daļa no spēles interfeisa? Ziņa par kļūdu?)?

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Kura noteikumu daļa netika ņemta vērā BGA versijā?

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.

• Vai noteikumu pārkāpums ir redzams spēles atkārtojumā? Ja jā, tad kurā gājienā?

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Kādu spēles darbību Tu vēlējies veikt?

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.

• Ko tu dari, lai panāktu šo spēles darbību?

• Kas notika, kad veicāt šo darbību (kļūdas paziņojums, spēles informācijas paziņojums,...)?

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Kurā spēles solī problēma parādījās (kas bija tā brīža spēles instrukcija)?

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 notika, kad mēģinājāt veikt spēles darbību (kļūdas paziņojums, spēles informācijas paziņojums,...)?

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu aprakstiet radušos problēmu. Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu iekopē tekstu, kas redzams angļu, nevis tavā valodā. Ja Tev ir ekrānuzņēmums, kurā redzama kļūme (laba prakse), vari izmantot Imgur.com , lai to augšupielādētu un kopētu/ielīmētu saiti šeit.

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.

• Vai šis teksts ir pieejams tulkošanas sistēmā? Ja jā, vai tas ir ticis tulkots pēdējo 24 stundu laikā?

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?

• Lūdzu, paskaidrojiet savu ieteikumu precīzi un kodolīgi, lai tas būtu pēc iespējas vieglāk saprotams.

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.

• Kāda ir Tava pārlūkprogramma?