Talk:Blunder (chess)

Spassky Fischer Round 1

Oh come on lads, there really should be some discussion of this here. That it's hotly debated only increases its relevance - it must be one of the most debated moves in terms of the question as to whether or not it was a blunder, and hence it is at the very least important for illustrating the subjectivity/ambiguity of what constitutes a blunder.

Changes

"In chess, a blunder is a bad move which is so glaring and obvious that it cannot be explained by the playing strength of the player making it."

I changed this because a grandmaster blunder is rarely that "glaring" and "obvious" to most people.

Changes

"In chess, a blunder is a bad move which is so glaring and obvious that it cannot be explained by the playing strength of the player making it."

I changed this because a grandmaster blunder is rarely that "glaring" and "obvious" to most people.

Add Andersson-Hartston?

I recommend adding in the Andersson-Hartston game where Andersson fell for 36...Qh3+!! 37.Kxh3 Bf1#: a very entertaining, and startling, example of a super-GM falling for a one-mover.[1] Krakatoa 06:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Deep Fritz - Kramnik

Shouldn't the diagram be of the position before the blunder? Or at least highlighting the blunder move via an arrow, as seen in at least one report. The blunder didn't create the mate threat; it ignored it.

This is clearly the worst blunder ever made by a sitting world champion in a serious game. But Wikipedia quoting Seirawan's informal opinion of it being a "tragedy" is stretching things. --Wfaxon 11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Someone changed the diagram; thanks. I added the last line to "sum up". --Wfaxon 16:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Chandler - Polgar

After reading the description several times, it is not quite obvious what the correct move would have been for Chandler. The use of the word "realizes" is possibly what's misleading me, but this example reads a lot less intuitively than the others. Perhaps a less colorful description, emphasizing what went wrong, might be more useful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.96.176.72 (talk) 21:10, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

• I will need to check in with that particular issue of Chess Life again to make sure, but I think simply pushing his pawn to h4 should be winning, two healthy pawns protected by a bishop should roll inn to promotion in short order, and fairly easily for a player of Chandler's strength. The reason I chose this example even though it is more subtle than the other two (Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz is a more recent addition) is that it shows a grandmaster walking into a trap which he knows is being set, which is kind of amusing and instructive. (But I am only rated as a 1219 "class IV" player, so what do I know?) Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:33, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Yep, h4 would have led to a fairly easy win, same source (Chess Life September 1997 issue, Chess to Enjoy) for the analysis. Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Chigorin vs. Steinitz

I found "Chigorin's one against Steinitz" named among the biggest blunders ever, but I wasn't able to find the very game this referred to. Can anybody help me, please? FloK 10:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Beliavsky v. Leif Erlend Johannessen

There seems to be something wrong with this example. As written in the article, 69. .. Qb8 cannot be a Checkmate, as white still has the escape route 70. Kg5. So, 69. Kf4 doesn't seem to be a blunder, it may be a weak move though. I propose removing that example from this article. Any oppositions? Thanks - KNM ^Talk 16:54, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Per this reference while queen is already occupying g5 square. Seems to be some rendering problem. The example seems to be fine, and there are no issues. - KNM ^Talk 19:02, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Chess Importance

This was high on the importance scale. Can't see the reason for that, as knowing the name is really a refinement and not anything fundamental to playing chess or understanding the game, so changed to mid. If you disagree feel free to change but leaving a reason would be useful. ChessCreator (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Topalov-Kamsky game 5

I think the four examples are good as it stands. For discussion and future reference, I bring to attention their Sofia match, game five, in which Chessbase called Kamsky's 35...Nb4 both "a blunder" and "a terrible blunder". Baccyak4H (Yak!) 15:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Najdorf-Fischer

An edit comment today wonders if this should be included. I added some comments by Najdorf which I think makes it worth keeping. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 18:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

• Thanks, I think it is keepworthy now, and illustrative of what I think is the most typical scenario for blunders. Blunders where one destroys a winning position and lose become more notorious, but blunders which hasten the end in bad positions are very common. I remember an amusing annotation by Neil McDonald about blundering a piece when one is positionally busted: "This is the kind of move you make so that you can tell your friends that you lost because you blundered a piece, rather than because you were strategically outplayed." Sjakkalle (Check!) 07:17, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Losing a piece by something of this depth happen almost every week at our club. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 15:09, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Not even clearly a blunder. Fischer (knowing that he is lost) may have deemed this the best practical chance. Being down a pawn and positionally busted is not much different than being down a piece. E.g., RJF might have been hoping for 30.Qxf4 Nxc4 31.Nxc4 Rd8 (still lost, but perhaps some resistance is posible). Houdini's "best" recommendation is 29...Nf6, after which 30.Nxb7 and 31.d6 wins trivially, 29...Ba8 is equally ugly. The other examples in this article are excellent; this one isn't even a good example of a blunder in a difficult position. Billbrock (talk) 06:01, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. The section asserts two things: 1) 29...Nd6 loses (true), 2) Fischer overlooked the followup (how could anyone know that unless Fischer confessed the oversight; nothing in the Najdorf quote suggests he did). Ihardlythinkso (talk) 14:28, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

room for one more?

Do you think there is room for one more example? The 11th game of Kasparov-Karpov 1985 match is a good example. Bubba73 ^{(You talkin' to me?)}, 01:22, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't think there really is an upper limit to the examples, but it is obviously not fruitful to list out every example of GMs blundering. If you think Kasparov-Karpov is a good example, I see no reason to not include it; it is after all a World Championship match which makes a blunder there all the more notable.

If we want to avoid burdening the list with too many examples, I think it is best to make sure that each example illustrates a different theme. I originally took in three examples (Petrosian-Bronstein for an example where a player forges ahead with his own plan without considering his opponent's threat, Chandler-Polgar for an example of a player working out one line which works but forgetting to consider alternate lines the opponent may play, and Beliavsky-Johannessen where a player neglects king safety in dramatic fashion), but there certainly is room for more than that. Another theme which is missing from the article is the double blunder, where one player makes a horrid move, but where the opponent is "trusting" and not alert to the opportunity. I had the pleasure(?) of watching this game between Carlsen and Hammer live a week ago, there was a double blunder on the 39th move: 39.Rd2?? Rhxd2?? (39...Rc1+ wins the house for Hammer). Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:20, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

I just want to very belatedly add that I agree with Sjakkalle completely. Ideally the examples would illustrate different themes, and the section titles could reflect the theme being illustrated rather than just the names of the games. Quale (talk) 22:25, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Examples taken out

Why take out the examples, with the diagrammed positions? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 15:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not advocating removing the examples, but I do have a question: Were either of the two removed examples sourced? I didn't see references for either of them. (In my opinion a chessgames.com link would not count as a reference for the purposes of this article.) The writing is a bit confusing in the Filip vs Darga example. Since White is winning I don't think I would say that Filip was "trying to keep the game alive". The text change from "Karpov went on to win the match retaining the chess crown until he was defeated by Garry Kasparov in 1985." to "Karpov went on to win the match and later beat Korchnoi again in 1981 in the "Massacre in Merano"." is definitely bad, however, and should be reverted or reworded. Quale (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Anand-Carlsen, 2013

Today's 28. Nf1?? definitely needs a subsection in this article. --Art Smart ^Chart/Heart 13:28, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.232.63.60 (talk) 16:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Whether or not to include it in this article is determined by WP:N and WP:DUE. In this case, the coverage in reliable sources is not comparable to that of Kramnik's blunder in game 2 of his 2006 match against Deep Fritz, or many other famous howlers. Toccata quarta (talk) 19:27, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Oh, Petrosian's 36.Ng5??...I can't help laughing and crying at the same time every time I see it. For sure it's one of the most famous blunders, along with Kramnik's 34...Qe3???. I don't think Anand's 28.Nf1?? will get into the same category – for one, while obviously a blunder once you see the refutation, it's not as obvious as most of those we already have here. Double sharp (talk) 14:21, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Viswanathan Anand vs. Garry Kasparov

As a very average player (presumably like many and perhaps most of your readers), I'd like more explanation as to why this is deemed a blunder rather than a mere mistake. To my doubtless naive view of the game, assuming a Queen counts as 9 points, the mistake seemingly just costs him his 2 points (2 pawns) advantage (he loses Q+P=10 for R+B=8), leaving the players level on points, so he is unsurprisingly able to defend for another 20 moves before resigning (for reasons which, for all I can tell, were quite likely due to subsequent poor play over the next 20 moves).Tlhslobus (talk) 02:35, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

And assuming it really is considered a blunder, then I suspect the article may need to say that this kind of 'relatively minor blunder' is actually more typical of most blunders than the more spectacular catastrophes shown in almost all of the other examples given here. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Blunder (chess). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121001011100/http://www.chessvibes.com:80/reports/caruana-extends-lead-even-further-in-sao-paulo to http://www.chessvibes.com/reports/caruana-extends-lead-even-further-in-sao-paulo

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Imbalance of number of games in 2 categories.

I noticed that there are 11 games mentioned in this article. In 1, the person that resigned was winning. The other 10 were (in my opinion), are not very out of the ordinary. If I had to fix this (which I might do, not that I have to right now or in the future!), I would add some examples of games where one resigned in a winning position. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.126.189 (talk) 10:59, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

Archil Ebralidze vs Viacheslav Ragozin, 1937

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h
8									8
7									7
6									6
5									5
4									4
3									3
2									2
1									1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h

40... Rс7?? For 41. R:с7 black planned to play 41... Bd6+, but the bishop was pinned.

The notable chess blunder, even, I think, the most notable double chess blunder in Soviet chess history. It's notable for legendary phrase "Archil, take the rook!" (Russian: Арчил, бери ладью!), which was said during 10th USSR championship in Tbilisi in 1937. You can see this blunder in appropriate article in Russian Wikipedia. --Brateevsky ^{(talk to me)} 18:32, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

two years late, but it's in the article now, @Brateevsky! lettherebedarklight, 晚安, おやすみなさい, ping me when replying 05:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Definition of a blunder

The article defines a blunder as being a critically bad move; later in the article, however, non-move decisions are also considered blunders. Which way do we have it, then? ISaveNewspapers (talk) 09:05, 11 July 2022 (UTC)