Talk:Blunder (chess)

message: 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. Krakatoa 06:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add Andersson-Hartston? 

message: 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)
replies: text: Someone changed the diagram; thanks.  I added the last line to "sum up".  --Wfaxon 16:38, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deep Fritz - Kramnik 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chandler - Polgar 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Chigorin vs. Steinitz  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Alexander Beliavsky v. Leif Erlend Johannessen

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject Chess Importance 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Topalov-Kamsky game 5 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Najdorf-Fischer 

message: Why take out the examples, with the diagrammed positions? Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 15:47, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Examples taken out 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Viswanathan Anand vs. Garry Kasparov 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:26, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Imbalance of number of games in 2 categories. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Archil Ebralidze vs [[Viacheslav Ragozin]], 1937 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Definition of a blunder