I'll try to straighten this argument out as best I can. A "Mate in..." is worse than a blunder. A blunder means you are losing. A "Mate in..." means you will lose. What category they are in doesn't matter. "Mate in..." is worse than a blunder, period. Now please, no more arguments.
@goldilocks
Since you seem to have trouble with wordy explanations, I'll put it simply as possible:
A "Mate in..." is not worse than a blunder, a ""Mate in..." is caused by a blunder.
Have a nice day.
Since you seem to have trouble with wordy explanations, I'll put it simply as possible:
A "Mate in..." is not worse than a blunder, a ""Mate in..." is caused by a blunder.
Have a nice day.
@goldilocks
forgot to answer your question: Yes, that's actually all I wanted was for the blunder to be marked as such instead of being marked as just a bad move. This whole 'is it right to say a "Mate in..." is worse than a blunder?" is just some colossal tangent we've gone off on lol.
forgot to answer your question: Yes, that's actually all I wanted was for the blunder to be marked as such instead of being marked as just a bad move. This whole 'is it right to say a "Mate in..." is worse than a blunder?" is just some colossal tangent we've gone off on lol.
A "Mate in..." is indeed sometimes caused by a blunder, but if you are under a "Mate in...", you are worse off than if you have blundered, unless that blunder itself has caused a "Mate in...". Anyway, that's the point I'm trying to make.
"Since you seem to have trouble with wordy explanations..." That's the stuff of classic YouTube arguments, each side throwing irrelevant points like that at the other. Stop with these insults made only to irk each other and just speak your mind.
Yeah, I think someone should just lock this thread since it's plunged into the murky depths of trolldom. Thanks Obama!
@PigsRule
"unless that blunder itself has caused a "Mate in..."."
Ah, but it often IS what caused it. And that's exactly why you can't say that.
And as I alluded to earlier, you can make a blunder and still be ahead! So if having made a blunder can put you in a "Mate in..." or still leave you ahead, then it really doesn't make any sense to try to compare a blunder with a "Mate in..." does it?
Hope you see my point now too. Peace, and good night :)
"unless that blunder itself has caused a "Mate in..."."
Ah, but it often IS what caused it. And that's exactly why you can't say that.
And as I alluded to earlier, you can make a blunder and still be ahead! So if having made a blunder can put you in a "Mate in..." or still leave you ahead, then it really doesn't make any sense to try to compare a blunder with a "Mate in..." does it?
Hope you see my point now too. Peace, and good night :)
Please stop typing...
I will if you will.
Perhaps you feel that because you can make more than 2 or 3 loosely joined sentences that makes you somehow smart. Your debating semantics here, no matter how flowery you try to make it sound, and otherwise just troll-baiting. However, for the sake of attempting to shut you up by simply giving you the proper answer, I will try to explain...
The computer analysis marks 2...g5? correctly as a "mistake" and not as a "blunder" because there is no advantage to be given up, since White is seen to have the advantage from the opening by having the first move, and Black's first move was already dubious. The position is lost after 2...g5? Although the move does indeed lead to the worst position that one can have, the move itself was not a "blunder" because the term is well defined. It was, as the computer indicated, a "mistake."
A "blunder" occurs when a move in a position significantly gives up an advantage. A positional blunder gives yourself a significantly worse position. A tactical blunder gives up significant material, or gives your opponent a chance to escape a loss by drawing or checkmating. 2...g5? is therefore not a blunder. It simply goes from an already questionable opening to a lost game, i.e. the worst position one can be in. If say the next move were 3. Qf3...that move would be a blunder, because it gives away a win and allows Black chances to balance the position.
The computer analysis marks 2...g5? correctly as a "mistake" and not as a "blunder" because there is no advantage to be given up, since White is seen to have the advantage from the opening by having the first move, and Black's first move was already dubious. The position is lost after 2...g5? Although the move does indeed lead to the worst position that one can have, the move itself was not a "blunder" because the term is well defined. It was, as the computer indicated, a "mistake."
A "blunder" occurs when a move in a position significantly gives up an advantage. A positional blunder gives yourself a significantly worse position. A tactical blunder gives up significant material, or gives your opponent a chance to escape a loss by drawing or checkmating. 2...g5? is therefore not a blunder. It simply goes from an already questionable opening to a lost game, i.e. the worst position one can be in. If say the next move were 3. Qf3...that move would be a blunder, because it gives away a win and allows Black chances to balance the position.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.