Carlsen: "Players under 1800 blunder almost every move"

HE said it about players beginning with chess, not with any RATING

No, most people blunder constantly. You don't want to accept it but half the moves you play in your games allow for sick knockout blows.

One not at a sub 1000 level, and two try and be accurate. I bet money he could look at your 1800 level game and point out all your mistakes. I find it funny how so many people who say they don't worry about their score get so offended when the world champ says that 1800 players stll have a lot of blunders, and read what he said not correctly quoted. 1800 is a good solid player but far from great. Keep your ego in check.

I could look at my games and point out all my big blunders as well, which is what we're referring to. Has nothing to do with ego, my rating is what it is. If I'm not titled my game still has large gaps in understanding, gaps I feel I have a decent grasp on and am working to improve upon. But I do not hang a piece every move, which we now know was never even said. And your standard rating is 993 and your blitz is barely over 500, both of which are under 1000, which is what sub means. Unless you only look at your online chess rating since it's the only rating you have over 1000 (and that not by much). So how about you try to be accurate?

Guys the rating is just a number!

People blunder all the time.

People with a higher rating will blunder less, and people with less rating will blunder more.

Also the less strategy you know, the easier it is to get into a blundermaking position, which is never good.

In the end you have to win because of a blunder, if your opponent never makes any mistake how do you win? On time! Here is my new blitz win.

I was left wondering wether you were joking around or halfly serious about some of them, as a lot of your points you look convinced that you are right, except the first one ofcourse Example move 15.. The pawn is pinned to the queen

Why can't I just take on d4? 18. Nbxd4

Thank you for your amusing post

-- I wouldn't play 17. Qc2 as then you can play d3 with a tempo on the queen

I would play Qd2

You can either, it really doesn't matter. The position still caves eventually.

Let's look at both possibilities separately.

A powerful display! Who wouldn't just take on c4 with the bishop and be happy with winning a pawn - instead ...Na5 creates that feeling of creeping, irresistable domination so typical of master play...

so typical of the play of someone who knows what he's doing. 

Chapeau!

I would never give up my knight in line 1 and there is many ways to keep it.
Board 1: Simply 19. Nd2

In line 2 ofcourse I can save both knights why not?

What Monster Carlsen says is true. But then the truth hurts.

He knows 'cuz he was once there and he understands the game as good as anyone ever has in the history of the game of chess....and that says it all right there.

Sorry egos.

may be harsh commentary, he may be off by a couple hundred points blah blah, but overall, yea - i think sometimes we focus too much on stuff that doesnt actually move the needle - that stuff def matters and its worth learning, not saying that, but if all your games end by tactics, then get better at those until you get to a certain level haha - you can do all the silman workbooks you want, but if that isnt actually leading to the difference in most games, you need to address other issues at the same time / first - this is a game 60

i just went to a tournament today - i played at a reasonable level, similar to my rating on chess.com, and most of the games in my section were driven by tactics / blunders - there was unlikley to be one game in the section that had nothing to do w blunders what so ever - they take longer to show up, and require more pressure etc. but they show up every game - when i lost, i made a stupid error and lost to a opening trap

obviously a bit harsh that he said 'almost every move' but if you're coming from his perspective, he is going to see all kinds of stuff that we dont and he is likely right - the word blunder means something different to him than most of us

Sorry! It's 4 AM I am tired he could just take on c6 in my line. But then again I can play Nd4 and if c5 I have Nc6! Keeping my extra knight

I am quite insulted

At this point I believe I have fully demonstrated why the line is bad for white. If you look at the analysis a bit yourself, you may come to understand what I have during nearly 3 hours of work on a single game. I do not need to go on demonstrating why the sacrifice is wholly sound. Black's gigantic pawn structure and white's stifling lack of space speak for themselves. If the knight goes to d2, as I showed in the first analysis of the line, the other knight is summarily lost. Because black retains an advantage even a piece down, it is simple to surmise that black will win materially even.

How is it an insult? It is just saying that you don't know your tactics very well, and if you can't see that, then it is probably the case.

If you can't sense whats wrong, then probably there is something wrong.