At What Rating Do Players Stop Blundering Pieces?

I was asked an interesting question by a couple of new chess players, and I didn't know what answer to give.  "At what rating do players stop blundering pieces?"  

The best answer I could give was "Expert, USCF 2000+," because I've had an A-class player leave a piece hanging in a classic time control game.  What do you think in your experience?  How strong is a player when they are able to say, "I haven't hung a piece or allowed a one-move mate undefended in years."

(note: we are tlaking about FIDE and USCF tournaments, and similar, not chess.com or other websites.)

I've seen a 2000-rated player lose a queen to a one move knight fork in a FIDE tournament (G/90 with 30 second increment).

If we're talking no blunders 99% of the time, I'd say a 1300 USCF player could manage it. But if we're talking quite literally never blunder a piece, then yeah, I'd go with maybe 1900 USCF. There are always exceptions though, even at master level, so I think the 99% at 1300 USCF is a far more useful statistic for them.

I don't know.  I think kids in particular hang a piece every few games at the 1300 level.  My son was doing so.  On the other hand, he's 1900 now and he hung a rook last weekend in a completely won position against a 2100 playing a slow game (G/90 with 30 second increment).  My son didn't notice that his opponent's queen was guarding the square (backward move along a diagonal).  In the post-game computer analysis, the evaluation went from +15 for my son to -8.  He resigned immediately.

Perhaps the better question would be, "At what rating are players expected to stop making blunders?"

I would guess maybe above the 1200 mark? (For hanging pieces and easily avoidable one-move mate blunders.)

Around 2900 is the answer. 

if you mean by a blunder,a tactic which blunders a piece.

People underestimate the importance of tactics.

I used to think about rating this way, but I changed my way of thinking after seeing Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz 10.

Kramnik went from a drawn position to allowing a mate in one- a mate in one that wasn't even that hard to see.

I think rating is more about general move quality over large samples of games rather than predicting the particular move this particular rated player would make IE: In this situation, a 1300 player goes Rh1, a 1500 player goes Rh2, a 2000 player would see Ka1 etc.) That kind of thinking is just silly.

I can say that I reliably blunder every game though. I am chess.com rated 1250 and in standard time control every loss I have is due to resignation because I left a piece loose in a drawn or winning position.

As a side note, I always analyze my games with computer, so I know for sure that the position is drawing or winning. That is not speculation on my part. The biggest blunder I've made is +4 to - 11.

3000

I would say at 1300-1400 no more pieces will be hanging in 99% of the games. For no hanging pieces at all you sould look to computers, not humans.

I actually hung a piece to a fairly simple tactic in a game this past weekend against a 1969, but I was already up a good deal of material (three pieces vs a rook with some pawns left) and so I still went on to win with the two pieces.

But I don't usually hang pieces, (1819 U.S.C.F.) that was just a stupid moment. I'd say past 1400 or 1500 is where your opponents will stop hanging pieces to simple tactics.

You never stop blundering, you just do it less frequently. 

The more salient question is, can the future inform the past? And quantum physics is leaning toward the conclusion that, yes, it can. Therefore, if you can  discover how do that, you can study your games, and then revise them ex post facto, so you never blunder in the final analysis. I think that's the answer you're probably looking for.

The reason I added that highlighted bit in the thread-starter.

Ignoring people speaking out of their depth is a good policy.  Ultracrepidarianism is rampant these days.

the answer is that it happens at all ratings.

this is not an answer to the exact question but I think that around 1700 people stop leaving pieces to be taken within 1 ply 99.5 percent of the time.

If you are able to avoid 4 ply and under mistakes 99% of the time while building sound long term positions then you are likely playing expert level chess. Most people are going to blunder fairly simple tactics a least once or twice a game.

True that.

Very nice way of putting it, JGambit. 

Have some fun with these world class blunders:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blunder_%28chess%29

Again, did no one pay attention to my mention of Kramnik's infamous mate in one?

I did, but I did not recall the game.  It was against Deep Fritz?  I can't remember the name of the program/computer.