Beyond the beginner level, if a chess game isn’t a draw, one player usually “resigns” if he feels his position is hopeless. There may actually be slim winning chances, but it’s ethical and sportsmanlike to “resign” (especially to a stronger opponent) rather than playing on to checkmate. It’s a sort of voluntary “mercy rule”.
Are there any other sport/games in which the player/team at a disadvantage can (and do) “resign” ? Obviously - there are some (e.g. billiards) - in which the loser gives up because there is zero chance of winning (not enough points left on the table). All the major team sports (and individual sports like tennis) play games to a completion - no matter how one-sided it may be.
Cricket (I presume you accept this as a “major team sports”)
In limited over games they always play the games out but long form matches can be ended when the captains agree a result is not possible. This usually results in a draw but sometimes a drawn result is equates to a win.
Happened to us today playing an elimination final.
Our mob were the higher ranked team and therefor will progress to the semifinal unless beaten.
Today was Day2 (Sun), they were dismissed on Day1 (Sat) for 160 and we were 3/81 in reply at stumps. Today was intermittent drizzle after heavy overnight rain. Play was due to start @ 10:30am but was delayed until 2:30pm. We only got 6 overs in (score now 3/89) when play was stopped again for rain. After another hour waiting passed and with another 20 overs possible if weather and light permitted the opposition accepted there was insufficient time to get the 7 wickets they needed to win, conceded the game and were eliminated. In theory, in a monumental batting collapse, we could have been dismissed and lost in a couple of overs.
I think billiards / snooker does count as an example, because fouls also score points.
So it is never the case that there is zero chance of winning, and therefore no obligation to concede a frame. Not only do players try a moon shot every now and then – genuinely trying to get some large number of snookers – but there are even times where a player plays on just to get some table time. Because just sitting watching for a long time can be detrimental to a player’s focus and touch.
It would be considered unsportsmanly for a player to frequently do this, but I am not aware of a specific rule on this.
I’ve seen it plenty of times in tic tac toe, both with a likely draw ending and a likely win/lose ending, even though it is technically possible for the outcome to go otherwise.
While there is no official way to concede in Battlebots, I have seen one side informally concede, requesting the other side to stop destroying the shit our of their bot, and allow it to be counted out, ending the match. Sometimes the other side accepts and other times it continues to kick the shit out of the other bot. The motivation is a bit different here, it’s to save what’s left of the bot which is both time & money consuming to fix.
Yes.
So in our competition we were playing finals with min 96 over days and play is reduced by 1 overs for every 3.75mins lost. A normal days play is 80 overs.
The time taken to bowl an over (6 deliveries/pitches) depends on the type of bowler esp. how long their run ups are.
Correct.
DLS is used in limited over fixtures to set targets when the amount of play available (due to conditions eg rain, light, heat etc) is asymmetric between the two sides.
For long form cricket the consideration is how much play remains. There is no consideration of sharing that time evenly.
In the gold medal game at the last Olympics, Sweden resigned when they still had a theoretical chance to win. It would have required the U.S. to miss two wide-open hits, though. Instead, the Swedish skip did a spinning delivery, then shook hands to concede the game.
You get this somewhat in gridiron football, at least in the NFL, when a game gets really lopsided late and a comeback is pretty much impossible. A team will sit their starters rather than risk injuring them without a reason and are effectively conceding the game by fielding the backups.
The game is still played to completion, and it can’t just be ended because the game is effectively over, but it’s clear that the loser has resigned. Also, there are people who will always criticize a team for giving up but most of the time it’s acceptable to do this when you have zero chance.
Baseball has recently adopted a “mercy rule” along these lines:
It doesn’t really fit the OP because it only applies to Spring training games and you are only ending an inning early, not the entire game. But unlike what happens in the NFL this is an actual rule, not just a custom.
Wikipedia has an article on various “mercy rules” in different sports at certain levels:
I’m not a big chess fan, but at any competition level, I’m fairly certain that the main advantage of resigning is conserving one’s energy and focus. Remember that a match in chess consists of a series of games, often in succession. If the situation is truly hopeless (a “lost position”, to use their terminology), it simply makes sense to not waste any more time and start fresh.
Quitting in boxing is permitted but extremely rare because for some reason it’s the single most despised action a boxer can take. That infamous “no mas” destroyed Duran’s reputation, and Tyson quitting in the 6th round against Kevin McBride ended his career. It’s far more common for him to just turtle up and wait for the ref to end it.
I’m iffy about a surrender option in Battlebots. I understand the desire to reduce repair costs, but “playing to spend as little money as possible” is completely the wrong mentality for this contest, and I guarantee that the fans are going to hate it. A “flash KO” option, doing away with the count when it’s clear that the bot can’t continue, makes more sense. I also think the ref should have the discretion to declare a “technical knockout” when one bot is obviously disabled at the end of the match, even if time has run out.
