Carlsen: "Players under 1800 blunder almost every move"

3 hours of work on a game that took 6 minutes to play. Great spent time. I just showed the refutation of your point and I would like you to show me the answer, or all the other analysis is wasted from your part.

-- Also I noted that I have played 4-3-2-1 games of blitz on chess.com

I think you are rated lower than me because you think that 2 pawns are worth more than a piece, which is overly mistaken. I didn't want to bring in your rating because it is of no matter, but you brought this on yourself. The final position is game over for black. 27. Nac2 and black is going to lose sooner or later

whoa there buddy I was joking

You mean after Nxa3? I would say it is white who is going to lose.

The position itself is winning for black.

It has nothing to do with material or ratings.

Yea, "playing for fun" everybody says that, but they all run away declining rematch or single type of gg.

By the way aren't you embarrassed to show up with that 3 digit rating? We have here 7 year old boy who almost doubled your rating...Even total beginner who knows rules and have dozen of games , after several hours of study  fundamental stuff and play will go  one thousand.

ap_resurrection wrote:

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

It's already been cleared up that he was misquoted and was referring to beginner level players. Unlikely he would say such a thing about an 1800. From his perspective we would make glaring horrendous positional weaknesses with the occasional dropping of a piece mixed in, but I don't believe he would say an 1800 hangs a piece every move.

AIM-AceMove wrote:

richb8888 wrote:

I love how people around 1800 are crying lol. I play for fun and try to give my brain some exercise. If your around 1800 your a very good solid player but your not a great player and will never be close to being a champion.  He could crush you in 20 to 25 moves, just put the ego away and have some sun.

Yea, "playing for fun" everybody says that, but they all run away declining rematch or single type of gg.

By the way aren't you embarrassed to show up with that 3 digit rating? We have here 7 year old boy who almost doubled your rating...Even total beginner who knows rules and have dozen of games , after several hours of study fundamental stuff will go above one thousand.

Indeed. Seems the majority of the players running in here and popping off about the accuracy of this (already confirmed innacurate) quote are nowhere near 1800 themselves. Probably telling themselves "yeah I blunder every move but 1800s do to so I'm basically an 1800 who's just inconsistent". Then when we point this out as nonsense we have an ego. Well here's an ego for you sub 1000 knuckleheads. I'm fully confident I could log on here blackout drunk and still spank you patzers for any amount of games you could handle the embarrassment of playing. So there.

i now i am not GM

I am 1437 Fide, and according to computers I make bad moves in ca 35% of the moves, and 65 % good ones . The bad moves are usually inaccuracies, some mistakes and a blunder now and then. I know for sure that I have made blunders in 60% of my ten last otb-games. In three games several blunders and in two games only one or two blunders. 4 games might have been blunderfree. The score was 7,5 ponts in 10 games.

Magnus is exaggragating, what he probably really means is that there are so many ugly moves that its overwhelming.

I'm just mere 1300 in FIDE rating and I have some perfect game OTB and online. I think Carlsen is exaggerating too much.

But he didn't say under 1800... READ THE SOURCE, he said players beginning with chess. 

So no, there are no comparisons with GM's, it's all Bull perpetrated thanks to stupid trolls like the OP

I believe I demonstrated this handily when I analyze adumbrate's games on pages 3 and 4. It seems that most of the tactical blunders committed by 2000s are ones that allow bizarre sacrifices granting long-term compensation. I'm still not sure if these count as blunders, but since they allow for sacrifices that make it much, much easier for the sacrificing side to win as well as giving them an objective advantage, I think its safe to say they do count as blunders, and analysis vindicates this. This type of blunder is so common that many GMs miss it.

Yes but without this crucial point that he is misquoted the answer and the question become extremely obvious.

Chess is played by humans, a game is won or lost by the player who makes one mistake less then his opponent. Ergo every human chess player blunders, people with higher rating blunder less then people with lower rating. What's there left to talk about it?

Blunder, mistake. Why talk about semantics, does it really matter? 

Also saying someone can win a game because he makes the right moves and his opponent made the wrong moves is exactly what less blundering is.

Maybe higher rated players are better at exploiting minute advantages, but this is obvious because this is the reason  they are high rated players to begin with.

I think you like Magnus Carlsen his fighting spirit in dry positions, but why not say that then instead of all this obvious semantics. 

Exactly.

All you goofballs getting your sphincters in a knot over this are hilarious.

True, he was talking about "beginners", not 1800s.

But to be fair, from Magnus' perspective, even 2500s play poorly. :)

Maybe the 2500 rated chess.com  analyzingcomputer also blunders a lot?

I'm not completely sure, but I bet Carlsen would think so.

In 2014 ("Carlsen vs. Norway"), he played a game against three grandmasters, who each used the assistance of Houdini (a 3200-rated engine) to check their moves.

Even with the assistance of a 3200 engine, the three grandmasters couldn't beat Carlsen. :-O The game ended in a draw.

So, yeah, I'm guessing a 2500 engine would make a lot of mistakes in Carlsen's eyes, considering he plays at a level much higher than that.

http://theweekinchess.com/chessnews/events/carlsen-vs-norway-match-2014

Could you repeat that ?