Post by Peter Moylan Post by Jerry Friedman Post by email@example.com
No, if they're honest, they'll recognize that the error shown to
them (in retrospect) resulted from a subtlety far beyond their
comprehension of the game and calculating abilities, and wasn't a
_blunder_ by their standards. However, overlooking a fork, for
instance, would be a blunder for them (and for nearly any level
players). Their judgment on what a blunder is is actually
connected to their game level and is therefore subjective.
If we accept that definition of blunder, which not everybody does,
it's still not subjective. The 2800 player will agree that it
wasn't a blunder for the 1700 player, and I'll take their word that
All such errors are blunders, in my opinion. If a player requires
hindsight to see what he did wrong, or even if he lacks the expertise to
see why it was a bad move after having it explained to him, it was still
The difference between top players and weak players is that the top
players make fewer blunders.
It seems that bebercito makes distinctions between blunders, errors, and
mistakes. They're all the same thing to me.
Hoping this will, at long last, set the record straight (emphasis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In chess, a blunder is a very bad move. It is usually caused by some
tactical oversight, whether from time trouble, overconfidence or
carelessness. While a blunder may seem like a stroke of luck for the
opposing player, some chess players give their opponent plenty of
opportunities to blunder.
What qualifies as *a "blunder" rather than a normal mistake* is somewhat
*subjective*. *A weak move from a novice player might be explained by the
player's lack of skill, while the same move from a master might be called
a blunder*. In chess annotation, blunders are typically marked with a
double question mark, "??", after the move.
I didn't know of this Wiki article, but it's strikingly close to what I
Post by Peter Moylan
Peter Moylan http://www.pmoylan.org
Newcastle, NSW, Australia