Lee Sedol vs Western Pros

[jts]

It seems to show something of a bad attitude/lack of seriousness. If playing with Lee Sedol is too embarrassing, how do they expect to get better?

[lemmata]

It seems to show something of a bad attitude/lack of seriousness. If playing with Lee Sedol is too embarrassing, how do they expect to get better?

That is unfair, don't you think? How do you know that they did not want to keep playing? I would be surprised if it was the western pros who wanted to stop. Let's not forget that Lee Sedol's schedule is heating up soon. He participates in both the Chinese and Korean leagues (requiring air travel), not to mention the main stages of various tournaments and the Chunlan Cup final in June. I am not sure there is anything Lee Sedol gains by continuing to play when 1) he is super busy and 2) he has already assessed the level of the western pros.

The series description itself only talked about handicap adjustments up to 2 stones. Even if the western pros won the next two games, they would only get to 2 stones, so they have already reached the highest handicap that was considered at the beginning of the match. It makes a lot more sense that the match was terminated as a courtesy to Lee Sedol, who is going to be very busy for the next few months.

I thought that the western pros did pretty well.

[jts]

You are absolutely right, it's unfair. I read more into the statement than I should have. It's curious that they carefully avoid saying outright who cancelled the series.

[skydyr]

You are absolutely right, it's unfair. I read more into the statement than I should have. It's curious that they carefully avoid saying outright who cancelled the series.

I imagine they were quite vague to try and keep anyone from looking bad due to specifics.

[Bantari]

You are absolutely right, it's unfair. I read more into the statement than I should have. It's curious that they carefully avoid saying outright who cancelled the series.

I imagine they were quite vague to try and keep anyone from looking bad due to specifics.

Methinks the only way somebody can look bad for making a decision is when its a bad decision.

[skydyr]

You are absolutely right, it's unfair. I read more into the statement than I should have. It's curious that they carefully avoid saying outright who cancelled the series.

I imagine they were quite vague to try and keep anyone from looking bad due to specifics.

Methinks the only way somebody can look bad for making a decision is when its a bad decision.

Well, if Lee Sedol is ending it because of his upcoming schedule, and they said so, it may look arrogant or dismissive of the western pros, for example. It's not a terrible reason, but to prevent that appearance, it may be left unstated. If you look at traditional multi-game matches, it was also pretty common to abandon them once a player was beaten down to handicap to prevent the losing player from looking even worse. Of course, if you come out and say that's why you stopped, it negates the whole reason for stopping.

[Bantari]

Methinks the only way somebody can look bad for making a decision is when its a bad decision.

Well, if Lee Sedol is ending it because of his upcoming schedule, and they said so, it may look arrogant or dismissive of the western pros, for example. It's not a terrible reason, but to prevent that appearance, it may be left unstated. If you look at traditional multi-game matches, it was also pretty common to abandon them once a player was beaten down to handicap to prevent the losing player from looking even worse. Of course, if you come out and say that's why you stopped, it negates the whole reason for stopping.

Scheduling issues can be prevented - this is what scheduling is all about. So if there is a conflict, somebody probably did not schedule properly.

The rest of what you say is about appearances only, and while I have to admit that appearances do matter, I do not consider such attitudes to be very professional nor really fair to the spectators.

Consider a marathon which gets stopped in the middle when it becomes clear that a certain person will win. Or a football game... or whatever. Most of such events are for spectators, and I personally would LOVE to see if the western pros could beat Lee Sedol at 3 handi. I am sure I am not the only one who feels like that.

Anyways - that's all moot. I hope we will learn the reasons.
But most of all - I hope we will see more of such matches. Was fascinating!

[Splatted]

I don't see the big deal about this. Yeah it would have been nice to see some 3 stone games, but how is this any different from resigning midgame once you know you can't win? It's the proper thing to do in order to avoid wasting your opponents time, especially among proffessionals who are there because it's there job not because they want to play. Even the idea of a proffessional stubbornly refusing to resign a hopeless position against the world champion just makes me cringe.

[hyperpape]

There have been a lot of professionals or other strong players who talk about the importance of high-pressure games where a championship is on the line. If everyone involved knows a game is just for show, then it can be hard to maintain competitive focus, and I wouldn't fault anyone for ending the series for that reason. I wish I could have seen the next set of games, but I also can't be mad.

You are absolutely right, it's unfair. I read more into the statement than I should have. It's curious that they carefully avoid saying outright who cancelled the series.

I imagine they were quite vague to try and keep anyone from looking bad due to specifics.

Methinks the only way somebody can look bad for making a decision is when its a bad decision.

Methinks you look bad for saying that. Now either you look bad for saying it, in which case it's presumably wrong, or it's possible to look bad for something that's really ok. Q.E.D.

P.S. I was with jts in thinking that the decision was initiated by the Western players. It's only after lemmata's post that I noticed it wasn't stated, or even implied.

[Bantari]

Methinks you look bad for saying that.

Why do you say that?
I can't see how anybody can look bad for making a good decision, that's all.
I mean - I really don't know, I just wonder. Why do you say that?

[hyperpape]

Really, I think it's obvious that you can look bad for a good decision, if the people judging you don't get that it's a good decision. And by your reasoning, if I decide that you look bad for what you said, it was a bad decision to say it.

I don't really think you look bad for saying what you said. But I do think you were wrong. And if I were more judgmental, I'd think you not only were wrong but looked bad as well.

[Bantari]

Really, I think it's obvious that you can look bad for a good decision, if the people judging you don't get that it's a good decision.

By this reasoning, you can look bad for anything. Just as much for hiding reasons for a decision as for showing it. So why hide it? Why do anything? Why even make a decision?

Yes, people can misunderstand - but this is why we do have the power to EXPLAIN. This is what the whole concept of COMMUNICATION is about. Most institution pay good money to have an army of people doing nothing but communicating - that's how important it is! One could say that this concept is the absolute foundation for the whole intra-webs thingy, this forum included. Its a very BIG and IMPORTANT concept!

So, let me communicate and explain:
I do not think you can look bad if you make a good decision and explain it properly.
Maybe I am wrong, but you have to make a good case to convince me, if you care.

PS>
I thought it was understood that this was the meaning of what I initially said... sorry for not spelling it out for you. Will try to do better in future.

[p2501]

Is this still about the Jubango or do you want to discuss this via pm?

[Bantari]

Is this still about the Jubango or do you want to discuss this via pm?

Its still about the match, and wanting to hear good reasons for the stoppage.
But yeah... I guess we got distracted. I shut up now.