Carlsen: "Players under 1800 blunder almost every move"

Just saying, 1800 is BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

This is what Carlsen actually said:

What advice would you give a beginner starting out at chess?#AskMagnus:

MC "All games between beginners are decided on pieces being blundered on almost every move. So I guess the most useful thing is just do exercises -- which pieces can you capture in this particular position?

Yeah! I raise a glass for the unsung 1800 player!!!

It would benefit some of the people commenting to read this entire thread from the start before making any more posts.

Regardless of whether Carlsen actually said it, this is 100% true. Every player under 1800 commits a terrible blunder at least once every game and makes countless smaller blunders every other move. That's why they're under 1800. Once you're above 1800 by a decent margin, you'll realize its because you were blundering that you couldn't win before.

Thread title is misquoted making it sound like a totally different statement. 

I totally agree with what he said.  I don't agree with what the thread title implies.

I don't think is comment is arrogant. It does seem slightly out of touch, but that's probably because it's been a really long time since he's been rated that low.

What a gross overstatement; crass, condescending, and classless.

I've had games 1900 vs 1900 with zero tactical mistakes...

but it was a boring game we were both trying to draw to win some money.

All normal games still have oversights and tactics that are missed... I mean, just look at any top tournament. They miss stuff every game too heh.

That's really part of the beauty of the game.

keep crying solsky----------love people like you who have to resort to name calling--go practice on your piano. I t shows what kind of person a person is what they go down the name calling road.

I've had 1200 vs 1150 games, and not too few of them with zero tactical errors on either side, in blitz, decided on time only. I'd say at least about 10% of my games even at that lowly level, when plugged into Stockfish, had zero 'kill shot' tactical misses by either side.  

Note that though, take that same 1200 error-free player and make them play a strategic monster like Carlsen who makes improving positional moves every move and will pressure every last micromistake, and the chances for that 1200 to player error-free just went to zero.  

It HUGELY depends on the strength of your opposition. It's patently false though that even 1200-level blitz players on chess.com just hang pieces in every game without provocation. The better your ability in both tactical and nontactical play, the greater chances you give your opponent to blunder.

So not surprising when Magnus says and thinks that all players < 2000 (prob even <2200) blunder every game, but not true at all if you're a 1200 level player expecting that 1800 level opponent to blunder against you.  They probably will NEVER blunder against you, as you will never pressure their position enough and they will kill all your counterplay before you even have a chance.

That's the big danger about taking world champion and GM comments as gospel and assume it applies to you as a class player. The reality for them is vastly different from you as a class player.

(As a side note, I feel this also applies to capablaca's "study the endgame first" advice. It makes PERFECT sense for a genius like capa, who played the opening/middlegame at a very strong level even in his first year of chess - all those stories of him beating men at age 6-8 confirm this. He was NEVER as weak as a C-D class player, after learning the basic moves. But for typical C-D class players who are getting wiped out long before the endgame occurs - better fix those early game-ending errors before you think about surviving and winning endgames. I don't know any youth coach who would advocate studying Lucena positions at the cost of studying tactics when their players are dropping pieces to simple 2-mover combos every single game or opening with the Damiano defense.)

You guys seriously, get a life. 

It was a throwaway remark he made on twitter. It was supposed to be hyperbole. You're taking it wayyyy too seriously. 

Anyway I hate tactics, they're the lamest part of chess, just checking the various possibilities like a computer. Chess is supposed to be a game of strategy. I like a good mating combination like anyone, not tactics flying everywhere, which is just uninspired "work" to be done.  

I agree way many too many uptight future world champions on this board like sloksy with big egos. I will also throw this statement in here before I read another thread on a cetian topic, yes there are good woman chess players who could beat 90 percent plus of the males on this board.

The best mating attacks depend on some sound tactics and heavy calculations to work out. 

On average, men are taller than women. There are BILLIONS of men who are shorter than tall women. In just about any room of people you will be able to find a single man who is shorter than a single woman.  But on average men are taller.

Hope that helps.

A troll no doubt, notice the OP hasn't returned since.

I admit lower rated blitz games contain fewer material losing blunders than I thought (when I checked a few months ago) but I think this is a little misleading.

At that level it seems 90% of trades happen for no other reason than a trade is possible. So with immediate exchanges all game long in an opening like giuoco piano or london then sure, there will be very few or no blunders. In a way, I think the shorter time control even helps, as neither player has time to out-calculate the other or look for harder to see tricks.

In sharper openings (or positions where there are tactics) it's very common to see dropped pieces, pawns, and missed mates. This isn't against lower rated players, it happens all the way up to GM level blitz games.

You deleted your comment and I have no idea why, but I will respond to the gist of it. "Players of, say, 1700 do not, say, hang a piece every move" was the essential point. 

Put frankly, I disagree. 

I have this rather old game I played back on January 1st where I crushed a 1700. It's not that he hung a piece every move, but his position got worse with every move he played. To me this what the OP's Magnus Carlsen dummy is trying to say, and its a valid point.

Ithought he meant real chess not blitz.

slotsky again with his over bloated opinion.

Well rich when you've put the time and work in to obtain a certain level and know what you're capable of you have the right to take offense. I've outright hung pieces in tournament, sure, but every single move? Absolutely not. And it's already been pointed out that magnus didn't even say that about 1800s but beginners. Nor would he say that about 1800s I imagine. If you don't take the game seriously and strive to improve and are happy sitting at a sub 1000 rating then hey, have at it. Have fun. But don't be nitpicking at people who have put the effort in to improve at something they enjoy. It's that simple.