Carlsen: "Players under 1800 blunder almost every move"

Members like Carlsen are allowed to be ridiculed, impersonated, and defamed....thats the chess.com way. I dont know what the tiers are, but maybe like this?

Bottom) Free members - give em another 25 video ads to keep their computer locked up.

Cellar) Celebrity free members - expected to "take it" and not say anything

Ground level - lowest paid members - 'good' person...aka "How do you do? I hope you are having a great day!"

It is of course an exaggeration, but "blundering a piece" has a different meaning for him. With is huge talent he can see much more things in a position than most of us, and some positional mistakes for example that we would even not recognize as such are so serious as losing a piece.  For example closing a file instead of open it to infiltrate the position is for a strong player like him something like losing a rook.

Those amateurs are starstruck and play Gm-simultans below their normal level. We had a simultan in our club, playing a GM. 10 out o 13 played below their level, scared of the tremendous strength they opposed. The blunders were frequent. I had only one blunder myself, the e-pawn, but played very strong after that and won on time in an interesting position, quality up, and two pawns down with slight initiative.

Yeah in 2000+ blitz/bullets, myself and bunches of 2k noobs blunders everywhere.

Who cares!!!!

we are amateurs playing chess for fun.

To quote a slightly less distinguished person:

"Good grief!"

Carlsen actually said "beginners", not "under 1800".

"Under 1800" was a fictionalized addition to the quote, made by the OP.

I'd say "beginners" fall into the 800 to 1000 range—and at that level, I'd agree that they tend to blunder pieces quite often (even if their opponents don't see it).

I have always consider that under 1800 its intermediate and going to 1900 or 2000 is to be advanced, still I dont think that a 1700 player make a blunder every move, but for a guy that its 2800 and has a perfomance of 3000 I guess a 1700 is a real noob, if I play against someone that its 1100 points below me I would think the same

1800 players can win a game with computer perfect accuracy if the opponent drops a single pawn out of a misplayed opening. This is complete garbage and not accurate. 

There are two things wrong with this: 

1) "blunder" has different meanings at different ratings. What might be an amazing combination that wasn't foreseen for a 1400 would likely be a humiliating blunder if a 2300 allowed it to happen. 

2) Even if we take the word "blunder" to mean from a grandmaster perspective, nobody blunders almost every move or even most moves anyway. Put a 1400 playing against Houdini at long time limits and as will be clear from Houdini's score most of the 1400 moves won't be blunders, a significant fraction of them will even be the best move. You'll have lots of bad or inferior moves of course, and a gradual worsening of the position, then every few moves maybe a blunder of material depending on how tactical the situation is. But not almost every move no. 

Blunder means losing a piece at one move, not a mistake 2 or more moves ahead. So he was simply wrong by saying that. You might say that the double threat at two rooks by a knight is also a kind of a blunder. Receiving this threat is a mistake of 2 moves ahead, right? So, was he correct if you define blunder by losing a piece 2 moves ahead? He is wrong, hah? The question is, how high rating will we reach if we stop all blunders (losing a piece of failure to capture a piece) of 2 moves ahead.

The supposed quote from Carlsen would have to be hyperbole since a player around 1800 may play the Stockfish 12 top choice something like 50% of the time (and more often a choice within a small fraction of a pawn from it in evaluation).

So making too strong a statement about 1800s would accidentally imply that Stockfish 12 blunders a lot. Few would seriously claim that.

[I am not sure what Carlsen actually said. You can't trust a second or third hand source without a link to a tweet or archive of tweets].

I bet his statement is wrong, but it helped me realize that if I stop all blunders (losing a piece or failure to capture a piece) calculating 2 moves ahead, I will  reach 1800, and I used to think that it is more difficult than that. Question is, how high rating one will reach if he stops all blunders calculating 2 moves ahead, and how high if he stops all blunders calculating 1 move ahead. 

P.S. Wrong conclusion of mine perhaps, I now think that success in avoiding to lose a piece or in capturing a piece calculating 2 moves ahead, is not enough. Quite good position moves i.e. calculating many moves ahead is necessary. 

Aspiring to reducing errors, starting with the bigger and simpler blunders, is not so exciting but it is surely the fastest way to improve.

At fast chess, I have a tendency to combine mostly good play with too many of the sorts of errors that I can eliminate almost entirely with more time to analyse. I have got rid of most of the "blunders" in my blitz (according to the analysis tool), though, touch wood.

Carlsen very probably has a different definition of  "blunder" than many have?

I knew you use a wooden set!

It is likely that he (like Stockfish) would view a large fraction of low-rated players' moves as inaccurate.

But you don't need to be that strong before you are catching the computer top pick a fairly large fraction of the time, any my point is that to view these moves as blunders would almost always be highly inappropriate. Also important is that most "inaccuracies" are likely to be illusory in the sense that perfect play would not give a different result after playing them. A true blunder is a move that changes the result with perfect play afterwards.

Agree with Elroch's post number #143.