![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
|
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.
"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.
"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.
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)
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)
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 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Why take out the examples, with the diagrammed positions? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
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)
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)
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:
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
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)
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 |
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)
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)