A blunder a GM might be a bit different to most players. That being said, one only needs to review their games with an engine to see how they are simply unable to keep a steady evaluation for long periods or how they miss possible jumps in evaluation that would favor them.

Perhaps OP is referring to this?

under 1800 don't know how to make nice move.

under 1800 don't know how to make nice move.

its my advice to under 1800 players try to do tactics more at least 2 per day and you will cross the 2000 rating mark!

Carlsen: "Players under 1800 blunder almost every move"

Yes, but some GM blunders too:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmZtRhUjbbM

Magnus Carlsen lost to an Amateur!

He either wasn't serious or doesn't know how player near 1800 play.  Stockfish 8 can beat Carlsen and says that most players games here have the best or an excellent move more often than not.

Conceit can be a virtue I suppose.

Seriously, there's not a "Blunder on every move" with players rated under 1800!  Doing a Stockfish 8 analysis of games with ratings under 1800 often results avg, moves being in around 0.3 pawn equiv. compared to 0.12 or so for Carlsen.

Consesquently, he's a World Champ but he doesn't have a clue about the games of under 1800 players if he really thinks the games are decided by nothing but blunders alone.  If I analyze games I've played against other under 1800 players. I get chess.com analyses that are sometimes very good, like this one I won as White against another 1700 player this month. Yes, each side made a bad move, but they were not a major part of what decided the game.

Carlsen's offhand remark, an obviously quick answer with no real thought put into it, shouldn't be taken as a serious!

"that's a lot of rage over something that wasn't even said"

Hehe, many posts and much energy spent on a fake quote :-)

In Carlsen's defense, I think it's worth mentioning that it's basically impossible to envision a player +- 400 points of your rating.

That's why (for those of us around 1800) a GM coach might say you're close to mater level... they can't really tell the difference between 1800 and 2200, you're rated too low.

Or for you players near beginner level, has a someone rated around 2000 ever overestimated you by a few 100 points? Maybe they said "you'd be rated 1500 if you entered a tournament I bet" but you were actually more like 1200?

Same sort of thing going on here.

Under 1800 is literally over 1000 points below Carlsen. Those of us rated highly enough, imagine how a player rated 1000 points below you plays...

You're probably wrong!

Look up e.g. players on chess.com rated 500 to 800. You'll probably be impressed that (at least some of them) seem to know opening principals, seem to be avoiding basic tactics, etc. (sure some games are a total mess, but not as many as you might expect).

 It really doesn’t, unless he was being hyperbolic.  I sometimes run my post games through the Stockfish game analysis. An entire game I might have a handful of inaccuracies,  maybe 3 or 4 mistakes and 0-3 blunders. 

Also, if the OP misquoted Magnus Carlsen this thread should be locked. 

That is a big no-no. 

If the position is standard and classical, then my opponent and I will probably play a few dozen moves at a very high level. If you know theory and basic ideas that's not hard. I'm talking GM level.

But the first difficult decision we have to make, sure, we might play a move that objectively loses the game right away

But still, this is pretty far from blundering every move.

Chess is usually a game where how a player deals with a few key positions separates the players by many 100s of points.

Umm, but also there are crazy imbalanced positions, where literally every move IS a blunder, from both players. I definitely play tournament games like that sometimes.

I should mention that too lol.

"if the OP misquoted Magnus Carlsen this thread should be locked"

What "if"? It has been pointed out a hundred times already that Carlsen didn't say what the OP claimed...

Is it a blunder to revive this silly thread -- roughly one year after it went to sleep, in March 2017 ?

What's even more comedic is how these threads (instantly) become a "Hot Topic," when some dotard adds a comment, like me, just now.  Duh?