When does one stop blundering?

Do you believe that I sometimes intentionally blunder vs stronger players and when I was in a losing position?

That's right. I sometimes intentionally do it.

So, what was the purpose? Exactly as I explained.

I remember I made a blunder or blunders so that I don't repeat them.

It has nothing to do with the fallacy which I am very well aware of.

This is an old story.

A mathematician carried a bomb into a plane. He was arrested. In court, he defended that he did it to make sure that no other person in the plane carried another bomb.

That's an old story indeed, but I doubt any mathematician really did this.

That's the same fallacy, trnaslated into a problem of conditional probabilities. The naive reasoning is "P(2 bombs on the plane) is extremely lower than P(1 bomb), so taking one bomb with me increases safety", but the full reasoning is "P(1 bomb) is the same as P(2 bombs | knowing there is at least one), so the additional bomb provides no protection (which could be expected)".

If by blunder you mean give away a piece with disregard to blatantly obvious peril, that can be reduced or virtually eliminated by imposing a very strict regime on oneself, of checking things out carefully before moving, without fail. It is a matter  finding a way to apply enough objective scrutiny, and then deciding how deep one needs to look to avoid errors.  If one is looking to avoid simple immediate blunders then a discipline of certain types of scans can probably reasonably easily cultivated and a certain quality of conscientiousness.

Nice. Because the other person had nothing to do with the mathematician carrying a bomb.

But how about P( next blunder| current blunders)? That  is totally different, isn't it?

Absolutely not.

No. The games have much more mistakes. Sure they play the opening by memory, and if it´s a very complicated position they will just try to complicate it even more, hoping that not even the oponnent can really calculate all the outcomes. But of course it leads to mistakes, and then the final part of the games, with few seconds for each player, can have a lot of blunders.

You also can see this on every Super GM tournament at classical control time, when they have to get to the 40th move, usually the position can be even at move 32/33 and then one of the players have few minutes on his clock, and he get to the 40th move, but with a lost position.

True, you can't stop blunders, but you can greatly minimize them by: 1.  Checking to see all the possible moves your opponent can make after making his move, especially the last move, and any possible combination moves; 2.  Check to see all the moves you can make -- all of them -- or possible combinations.  If you do this carefully, not being lazy and working hard to do your best, you should be rewarded by a significant reduction almost to zero blunders.  As Grandmaster Dzindzichessvilli (Sp. ?) said to the effect that it's there all before you on the board.  Read it carefully and act accordingly.  Doing this is very hard work, but who said chess was an easy game?

The sad part is when you do all the blunder checking process in your head for many minutes (in a critical position), and then you discover a "brilliant" move that you don´t know how you didn´t considerate, just to realize after moving the piece, that you are just going to lose a piece, and that that "brilliant" move, was the first move that you discarded 23 minutes ago.

No, it is exactly the same, assuming the frequency of unintentional blunders is an random phenomenon without memory, ie P(anything about blunders | whatever occured before) = P(anything about blunders).

Of course that assumption is an approximation because you could pay more attention after the first blunder, or oppositely not find that the game is worth focusing anymore ; you can be demoralized for the rest of the tournament, or have a "stand up and beat that guy" moment that increases your performance, etc. But anyhow, making blunders on purpose has absolutely no other impact on your future performance than the psychological things. If getting beaten with one less queen instead of one less piece makes you more confident for future games, give the queen as soon as you lose a piece, but I suspect that wasn't your reasoning.

The point is that if you start blundering on purpose, that is no longer a random phenomenon. Formally, if the event "unintentional blunder" is still a random law which parameters blah blah blah, the event "intentional blunder" is not random in the usual sense of independant of any control from you. It can be considered a random phenomenon but the parameters depend on the "strategy" you adopt - most players would adopt P(intentional blunder) = 0, but yours is something along the lines of P(intentional blunders | blunders before) = f(blunders before) with f an increasing funtion. The event "blunder - intentional or not" can be considered as random but only after you chose the "strategy" for the intentional component. Deciding to make blunders on purpose increases the rate of blunders, not very surprinsingly.

the way I see it -  it's better to blunder than blubber.

You'll never stop blundering completely as long as you continue playing chess, but if you train properly, you'll blunder less and less over time, and at some point, you'll start having games every now and then that don't feature any blunders, and if you continue improving, you'll have those games more and more frequently.

Blunders will always remain common though if you play only blitz or bullet. To reduce blunders, you need to improve tactically, and you must cultivate and practice a sound thought process at slow time controls. See Dan Heisman's Real Chess for an example of a sound thought process that will result in fewer errors over time if practiced at slow time controls in conjunction with tactics training and other practices like good time management.

Yes it's a good idea to make your blunders deliberately in knockabout games, then you'll make less blunders in proper games. That's the law of averages that is.  Faultless logic right there. 

Irontiger, I resign/ surrender. You have a very good analysis.

I have never thought that before, but you are right in mathematical sense.

But, I will never stop blundering until my blunders stop me. lol.