Members · Prefs · Collections · Openings · Endgames · Sacrifices · History · Search Kibitzing · Kibitzer's Café · Chessforums · Tournament Index · Players · Kibitzing

H Runde 
Photograph copyright © 2007 Raymond Boger.  
Hans Arild Runde
Number of games in database: 19
Years covered: 1997 to 2008
Last FIDE rating: 1988
Highest rating achieved in database: 2054
Overall record: +7 -5 =7 (55.3%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games
      Based on games in the database; may be incomplete.

Repertoire Explorer
Most played openings
B29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein (2 games)

Search Sacrifice Explorer for Hans Arild Runde
Search Google for Hans Arild Runde
FIDE player card for Hans Arild Runde

(born Jul-07-1972, 42 years old) Norway

[what is this?]
Contributor to as User: frogbert. Fan of Magnus Carlsen since 2001. From April 2008 to August 2011, Runde maintained an unofficial version of live FIDE ratings of leading grandmasters at

On January 1, 2010, Henrik Carlsen wrote "We would also like to thank the many chess enthusiasts contributing to chess as spectators and commentators, ..., chess blogs (with significant contributions from for instance Hans Arild Runde ...)". (Source:

 page 1 of 1; 19 games  PGN Download 
Game  ResultMoves Year Event/LocaleOpening
1. H Runde vs A Groenn  ½-½55 1997 ASKOs KM , gr. AB06 Robatsch
2. O Hole vs H Runde  ½-½41 2000 ASKOs HTA04 Reti Opening
3. H Runde vs T Gabrielsen  0-146 2001 ASKOs PinseB03 Alekhine's Defense
4. C F Ekeberg vs H Runde  ½-½66 2001 Teams East 00/01, 1. divA11 English, Caro-Kann Defensive System
5. H Runde vs K Stokke  1-051 2002 Troll MastersB27 Sicilian
6. Carlsen vs H Runde 1-032 2002 Astlandserien 01/02 div. 1, ASKO II - AskerB29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein
7. E Hagesaether vs H Runde  ½-½56 2002 NOR Ch RorosA08 King's Indian Attack
8. H Runde vs S Johannessen 0-126 2002 Teams East 01/02, 1.div.B47 Sicilian, Taimanov (Bastrikov) Variation
9. H Runde vs B Thanke  1-043 2002 Teams East 01/02, 1.div.B86 Sicilian, Fischer-Sozin Attack
10. H Runde vs M Jensen 1-024 2003 ASKOs KM , gr. AB14 Caro-Kann, Panov-Botvinnik Attack
11. B Thanke vs H Runde 0-138 2003 NOR Team Champ , OpenB29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein
12. H Runde vs B Egede-Nissen  ½-½69 2005 Teams East 04/05, 2.divB01 Scandinavian
13. G Henriksen vs H Runde 0-146 2005 NOR Team Champ , OpenE13 Queen's Indian, 4.Nc3, Main line
14. H Runde vs N A Mellem  1-042 2005 ASKOs KM , gr. AB41 Sicilian, Kan
15. H Borchgrevink vs H Runde  ½-½52 2006 NOR Team ChampE12 Queen's Indian
16. O Hole vs H Runde  ½-½34 2006 ASKOs KM , Gr AD43 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
17. K Trygstad vs H Runde  1-060 2006 Teams East 05/06, 1. divB43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3
18. J Aulin-Jansson vs H Runde 1-050 2007 NOR Team ChampE15 Queen's Indian
19. H Runde vs O Moen 1-038 2008 Norwegian Club ChampionshipC78 Ruy Lopez
 page 1 of 1; 19 games  PGN Download 
  REFINE SEARCH:   White wins (1-0) | Black wins (0-1) | Draws (1/2-1/2) | Runde wins | Runde loses  

Kibitzer's Corner
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 153 OF 242 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Jul-18-09  frogbert: slo, only bf7 or bd7 has potential to work i think - bf5 would probably be too easy to "catch" as a swindle attempt. after bf5 you have re8 and bxf5+ even covering h3 and indirectly protecting c3.

note that in the previous move (prior to the diagram i posted), white (i) had a very simple forced win, too, that should've forced resignation:

click for larger view

simply ra8+ kg7 h8:q+ rxh8 rxh8 kxh8 is an elementary win too, but i fear that most opponents in my group would've continued the game regardless, even two pawns down like here:

click for larger view

but who can blame them? during the event, i won a piece via tactics 3 times, in rounds 2, 5 and 7, and like you already have seen, i managed to inflict a self-mate on myself at one of those occasions - round 5. ;o)

still, maybe i should feel a little bit insulted, because in 3 of 3 cases my opponent continued the game a whole piece down. more precisely in the following situations:

click for larger view

(black just blundered with ne4, but the game went on for another 30 moves)

click for larger view

(white just blundered with qxb7, grabbing a very poisoned pawn - lost a piece, played on and was rewarded with a help mate)

click for larger view

(white blundered with nxe4?? and was duely punished by nxf2, winning a piece - but the game went on for another 15 moves before my opponent resigned)

Jul-18-09  slomarko: heh a couple of days ago when you posted this position i immeditely thought that white probably went Ne4 but i wasn't sure if he had some good move. the only thing i can think of is Bd3 ed3 Ne4 but it looks ugly.
Jul-19-09  frogbert: reposting from carlsen page:


*[returnoftheking]: Frogbert I asked for info and someone is kind enough to provide it to me. No need to start insulting them for it ("lame"), even if you don't like it (and please don't threaten me on fics). Your comment is also rather strange in the light of your earlier pretentious posts about the evil of pretending to know other kibitzers motives.


*[frogbert]: <(and please don't threaten me on fics).>

what kind of threats am i making? with which user? just curious. :o)


Jul-19-09 *[returnoftheking]: I don't think it's funny..


*[frogbert]: <I don't think it's funny.>

then simply answer the questions, rotk:

1) which user threatens you on fics?

2) what does he/she say?

3) why do you claim it's me?

if anything of what you're saying is true, then answering 1) and 2) should be fast and simple - not doing so casts a strange light on you and your previous statements.

and it's no joke: i'm very curious to learn how you connect that (so far hypothetical) threat maker with me - that's question 3.

now please answer 1) and 2) immediately, or eat your words.


Jul-19-09  frogbert: more reposting:


Jul-19-09 *[returnoftheking]: lol. Now you (!) are lecturing me about groundless accusations? Ha! Search a bit at the kibitzer cafe I'v reported you immediately.


*[frogbert]: why are you "laughing out loud", rotk? is something funny?

please answer my questions, or eat your words.


Jul-19-09 *[returnoftheking]: or ignore you. (k cafe) *click*


*[frogbert]: <or ignore you.>

hah. in which forum where i made a post today did you <not> follow up with some post as a direct reaction to a prior post of mine, rotk?

i posted 4 places, and the answer to the above is <exactly one> - my player page, where you are physically prohibited from posting. the probability that you're going to "ignore me" for any significant period of time is exactly zero.

inventing threats on fics - or wrongfully attributing them to me - was a very clever idea, since you simply <must> know which fics user that hypothetically has threatened you. your unwillingness to provide us with that "information" is probably proof enough for most people.


Jul-19-09  frogbert: reposting from acirce's forum:


*[returnoftheking]: <acirce>

If you don't mind I'll reply to you on your forum and you can delete it after reading. How on earth can I get evidence. He identified himself as being Fb and I am inclined to believe it, based on his behavior there and here over the years and his false and "detailed" claims of me doing the same in the past (!) (p.s. where were you or any of the others then) Just now I was sick and tired so I asked him not to threaten me. If you see it as an accusation, that's fine with me. It's foremost a request to not do it. And to me it's telling that he doesn't say he will. Not that I attach much value to his promises anyway. If they were any good he would be gone of this site forever about 5 times..

At any rate there is a lot of of hate, even at pokerstars I recently got a load of crap out of the blue from a Norwegian player (nick: "furiousss") with the same avatar as fb. He was from Gaukken or something, I remember cause I googled it in surprise. Even if it is not frogbert-with the risk of being called paranoid- I definitely think Frog is partially accountable with his posts putting me away as lowlife and more that should be eliminated from this site.

Bottom line; I think it was him, can't prove it of course and that's why I don't say it is him with 100 percent certainty.


some comments:

<rotk: how on earth can I get evidence. He identified himself as being Fb and I am inclined to believe it>

i've already told sitz/rotk: give us the <username> of this fics user, and tell us <when> this happened. that way i can <prove> that it wasn't me.

<Just now I was sick and tired so I asked him not to threaten me. If you see it as an accusation, that's fine with me.>

"if you see it as an accusation". huh?

<It's foremost a request to not do it. And to me it's telling that he doesn't say he will.>

you need the brain of sitz/rotk to demand that people won't promise to stop doing something they're not doing.

<even at pokerstars I recently got a load of crap out of the blue from a Norwegian player (nick: "furiousss") with the same avatar as fb.>

so there are pokerstars users with the same avatar as the one i used here at i really wonder who created that account and put it down as being from "norway". [everyone who knows me can tell you that i don't play poker, online or otherwise.]

<I definitely think Frog is partially accountable with his posts putting me away as lowlife and more that should be eliminated from this site.>

here's the quiz question: who's trying to get as much attention to the post containing the word "lowlife" as possible, and has been doing so for more than a year now? including putting it in his profile and duplicating it to various forums?

it's about time that rotk has a look in the mirror so that he spots the person that <really> is responsible for the stuff that happens to him, including his 6 month ban from

Jul-19-09  frogbert: repost from the carlsen page:


Jul-19-09 *[returnoftheking]: I'll ignore the questions you already know the answer to. Needless to point out, but you reacted on my post (about carlsen's eurotrip) above, not the other way around. And after that you attacked/replied to someone who talked specifically to me.


*[acirce]: <returnoftheking> Only I could find was this:

<So, I just got a death threat on FICS from someone who claimed to be a well known kibitzer on this site. The world is getting more interesting every day..>

If you are accusing <frogbert> in public of issuing a death threat, but you are unwilling to give even a shred of evidence, maybe you, well.... shouldn't do that.


Jul-19-09 *[returnoftheking]: <acirce> I'v replied in your forum.


*[frogbert]: <I'll ignore the questions you already know the answer to. >

rotk, watch your tongue.

you're saying that <i already know the answer> to which fics user threatened you, and what this user said.

that implies that you claim i was that user, or that i know that user and was watching when/how you were threatened.

i have done neither. but you can no longer claim you made no accusations.

an <identified kibitzer> created two different email accounts in <my name> and sent threats to one of my real email addresses. note that i write <<<<identified>>>>.

does that mean that i threatened myself, since i got emails from "<fill in my name here>"?

in acirce's forum you say that you <don't know> who threatened you - you simply want it to be me. now, how does that fit with your above claims and accusations?

i repeat it for the last time: eat your words.


Jul-25-09  frogbert: repost from tpstar forum:


tony, your ability to be true to your ideals about exchanges of opinions is impressive.

you allow angslo - who posted between 100 and 150 posts containing nothing but personal attacks against me in his forum and elsewhere - to use your forum for <more> personal attacks, while you delete my single corrective comment without a word in reply.

consider these concepts for a while: self-deceit, dishonesty, bias, prejudice.

sometimes you initially get the wrong idea, tony. that's not a crime. sticking to it and avoiding correctives at all cost, even when evidence starts piling up against your initial idea, however ...

what do you really care for, tony? freedom of speech - or <your> right to express yourself freely? i'd wish you'd give it a thought before you delete my post.


context: tony palmer a.k.a tpstar on has twice been offered access to more information about the actions of certain kibitzers outside of, info that hopefully could serve as a corrective to his idea of some people here as "praiseworthy freedom fighters". however, he prefers not knowing and not talking with me, while he continues to offer space in his forum for people posting lies and personal attacks against me.

in general - if you despice someone to the extent that you aren't willing to talk with that someone - well, then it's quite clear to me that you're so prejudiced that whatever opinion you hold about that someone can easily be disregarded; such amounts of prejudice invalidate any interpretations you do and leave them worthless.

Jul-25-09  frogbert: repost from the carlsen page:


*[tpstar]: <frogbert> Enough.

1) You're the one who wrote "WHY I LEFT CHESSGAMES.COM" on 4/23/08 Hans Arild Runde prompting Henrik Carlsen to respond here and there: "Frogbert, please let me know if there is anything I can do to help you, one way or another, here at" (4/23/08). If that isn't badmouthing this site to Carlsen's father, then nothing is.

2) You're the one who tried to delete 20 pages of your own 500 posts. I can only wonder what was so terrible that you felt compelled to remove your own work product.

3) frogbert (4/12/08): "xaurus, bukkerogtakker, metatron2 - i've also decided to apply the 'brutal' solution. i realize that metatron2 still chooses to give slomarko the benefit of the doubt, but i will take a 'cleaner' approach." You were in on the smear campaign and don't deny it.

4) Let's not forget how you have left in a huff before. TheGladiator (8/31/07): "I hope the kibitzers here will treat you well when I'm gone. Together with <a> and <b> you might well be remembered as the ones who bullied me to stop using I suppose you are proud."

5) I have posted on your player page twice, and both entries have since been deleted. The first was on 4/20/08 when you complained about the "biggest personal attack in's history" and I wrote a comprehensive reply (including a reference to Susan Polgar), which is now gone. However, you didn't edit your response beginning "Fourth, you have designated yourself as Moderator of the Carlsen page" and where else would you get that line? You removed <acirce>'s memorable take (tpstar is "someone I just can't stand") but forgot to remove the post by <positionalgenius> down below. Your attempt at revisionist history just backfired. Beyond that, don't go around telling me and everyone how you want to have a "conversation" if you're deleting my previous posts.

6) The second entry which vanished was about our friend <inderhinder> and I still think he is from New Zealand and not Norway. But if you want to "improve the atmosphere and the quality of everyone's experience" then you wouldn't have broadcasted his profile on the Odd Lie page where everyone could read it.

7) You tell us we all shouldn't judge good and bad, and yet you want to judge good and bad posters on this page, and even good and bad posts on this page. That is a double standard.

8) If you want the C-A-R-L-S-E-N page to get better, why keep bringing back all this old damage? Everyone knows what happened before; Don't Look Back. Stop trying to win a draw.

9) frogbert (4/1/09): "I'm the guardian of The truth here on the Carlsen page." I objected to that statement before, and I still object to that statement now. You are not the Moderator of this page. Do not act like it. Even if MC & HC themselves say so, I highly doubt the Administrators would allow this, after you have wasted so much of their time.

<rotk> <angslo> You have both been disciplined before, and you are supposed to Leave Him Alone. If you would honor that, we'd all be fine.

This is the Magnus Carlsen page, for his chess and his career. All further personal disagreements belong on your player page or your chessforum. Thank you.

Takk for den. =)

Jul-25-09  frogbert: due to the inconvient thing known as "night" taking place here in norway, the dissection of tpstar's 9 points must wait until tomorrow. most of his points will get a single post in reply, so there's a lot to look forward to.

i do hope that tony will be man enough to consider and discuss my replies - like, one does when having a conversation. so far tony has only lashed out against me, showing no intention to receive or acknowledge corrections to his perceived observations. this was very important for the "faith" of his first post on my player page - something he would've known if he'd 1) bothered to reply to me back then, or 2) asked before now inventing his own theories of "revisionism". but don't worry - i'll get back to this when responding to the following:

<I have posted on your player page twice, and both entries have since been deleted. [...] Your attempt at revisionist history just backfired. Beyond that, don't go around telling me and everyone how you want to have a "conversation" if you're deleting my previous posts.>

over the next few days we will see which attempt(s) that really backfired. but now i wish everyone (to whom it applies) a very good night. :o)

Jul-25-09  frogbert: just another repost, to "collect" relevant material:


*[frogbert]: <Everyone is responsible for what comes out of his/her mouth. That's a no-brainer.>

it should be. it isn't. inventing a hostile tribe or a conspiracy is a useful way of

1) explaining to yourself why several individuals are critical towards what you do

2) attacking the leader you appoint to the invented tribe for anything other people "of the tribe" might say or do

these techniques have been used for a long time already on the carlsen page, and other kibitzers buy into it.

<If some people use someone else's words to attack you, that means that they couldn't come up with a good argument to use against you.>

that's less comforting than it sounds. one myth that <several respected people here> immediately embraced and repeated, was that i at one point run a campaign for putting two kibitzers on ignore. this was a complete and utter lie, but i'm still suffering the consequences of this old lie, and one of the so-called victims (who invented the lie) seemingly still receive good-will because of it.

i was even accused of bad-mouthing to carlsen's father and for encouraging him to ignore certain kibitzers. the truth couldn't be further from this accusation:

if i had said yes, henrik would've taken moderator responsibility for this page. <then> i could've influenced the deletions on the carlsen page. <then> a couple of kibitzers could've been banned from this page after repeated violations and repeated trouble making. but i <declined> henrik's offer to moderate this page. his offer was tightly bound to my continued participation here.

the way things are going here, though, i will seriously need to consider my answer if i get such an offer again.

Jul-25-09  frogbert: and a couple more:


*[rogge]: <it's flame bait>

Then why do you take it? A couple of hours since made a statement here, and a new fight is on.

The Carlsen page gets what it deserves.

AND it's April 1st.

A new round of deleting posts, of course.


*[frogbert]: <Then why do you take it?>

i think that's a question of definition, rogge. maybe it's naive, but my hope is that it will be possible some day to talk about carlsen and his games here without anyone having to "spice things up" with provocations like addressing irrelevant personal features of carlsen.

that other celebrities also have to suffer from people's envy doesn't in any way make it more acceptable that some people get a kick of out saying that carlsen suffers from adhd or that he's got a boyfriend, if neither is true.

and remember, rogge - i'm the guardian of The truth here on the carlsen page. ;o)


it was even posted with my standard irony marker, to help the blind. what am i going to do in the future, i wonder - say "now everyone i'm going to make a self-ironic comment making a parody of what my detractors accuse me of, so listen carefully"?

note how tpstar's "quote" has changed a clearly self-ironic comment directed at my friend rogge into some boasting, self-important nonsense, by removing context and my irony-smiley - the " ;o) ". it'll be interesting to learn tony's explanation when we finally get to point 9. my hypothesis is "prejudice", but i'll be open for any reasonable explanation for his misunderstanding. i doubt we'll get there tomorrow, though.

Jul-26-09  frogbert: repost from the carlsen page:


<And about the tribal behavior- unlike what FB said I didn't come up with that>

stop lying or learn to read english. i <never> said that <you> came up with the "tribal behaviour" thing, rotk.

<Achieve, brankat, tp, jfq, angslo, lorker and many others have all been attacked here by FB and the gang>

that's a nonsensical statement in so many ways that it's simply ridiculous. first, what kind of group is "FB and the gang"? again and again and again you're pinpointing ME and giving me "credit" for stuff other individuals might have done. are you illiterate, rotk? there is <no gang> - i am <not> responsible for what other people do. stop blaming me for it.

you say i attacked achieve, brankat and jfq here. i guess that's similar to how russia attacked germany during world war ii. learn your history or keep your mouth shut. you appear entirely clueless about who attacked who.

long time ago i used to consider achieve a friend here on - until the Big Character Attack. then i first was devastated, then several times asked achieve to reconsider, and then later, at some point i started to try defending myself. neither brankat nor jfq has ever been regular kibitzers on this page (unlike achieve who used to be) - they both jumped in with no self-experienced context and started to set people straight, in particular me. of course they got about nothing right, especially jfq was wrong about almost everything she wrote - despite speaking in big letters and condemning almost each and everyone on this page - but again, in particular me. after these initial attacks, both brankat and jfq followed up with more condescending and personal and degrading characteristics of me in their own and their friends' chess forums.

i've mostly put all that behind me, <despite> never getting any apology for those character assassination attempts, and i have no problem chatting with jfq now (despite <another> round of made up or completely out of proportion accusations more recently).

in summary: you don't have a clue what you're talking about. if tpstar should tell <anyone> to move on and forget about the past, <you> would be the proper addressee. you keep digging up old dirt again and again, without knowing @#$% about the context, who did what, who attacked and who defended. tpstar is guilty of doing the same mistake: reading and searching some back and forth on a page he seemingly has little interest in (no regular carlsen-related posts), and then <thinking he knows best what has happened here> and even <why> people do what they do.

it's pretty ridiculous when tpstar blames <me> for going back, when <you> are the one initiating it - in short giving me the option of accepting your lies about the past or arguing against your nonsense. yes, it's my choice to defend myself now and then, but i'll go into more detail about this on my own player page. it's tpstar's point 8.

finally: there's no need to leave the carlsen page - that doesn't prove much. rather stick around but drop all the personal stabs and the nonsensical gang/tribe/cult/club/whatever talk. stick to chess and nice, polite, civil comments. avoid cheap shots and stuff you <know> people will take offence of - unless it's <important> to communicate it. your own search for a haiku you "love" is <not> a good reason to offend people, whether they "should" be offended or not. imnsho.

Jul-26-09  frogbert: another carlsen page repost:


< it's interesting to see how the same people; zarg, fincher, rolfo and some others answer everything for him. Like Hyena's in a pack ;-) Can't your hero speak for himself?>

hero? you're sure you didn't mean dominant hyena?

<answer everything for him>

so they answer everything "for me"? is that the reason tpstar walks in to set me straight, because i didn't open my mouth?

that quote is so revealing, rotk, that i wish admins never, ever removes it from this page. here it is, again:

< it's interesting to see how the same people; zarg, fincher, rolfo and some others answer everything for him. Like Hyena's in a pack ;-) Can't your hero speak for himself?>

what does that make you, rotk, if not tpstar's <hero>. you want freedom of speech, right? so why can't zarg, fincher, rolfo and some others tell what they think about your attacks on me? aren't they allowed to speak their mind when there's something that bothers them? do they suddenly become "hyenas in a pack" because they agree on something and disagree with you?

instead of arguing with what they say, you're again introducing conspiracy theories and spouting ad hominems. you know what that is, rotk? it's <clear disrespect> for those individuals. you're accusing them of being dumb followers of a flock leader. and it's your easy way to avoid taking what they actually say into account. i call that self-deceit.

Jul-26-09  frogbert: tpstar, tony palmer, you have just completed your 3rd round of "setting me straight". so far, that's all you've done: in clear english you've told me what i've done, why i did it, what i shouldn't have done and what i'm supposed to do in the future. i hope that doesn't violate any of your principles about people's personal freedom. i'm a person too, you know.

of course, you're entitled to your opinions about me. you probably find it time saving not wasting any time considering my replies or entering any discussion or conversation about it with me. i saw you provided another explanation for your unwillingness to talk with me in your point 5, but when i get to that point, i'll explain why that "explanation" is entirely bogus - or at least why i seriously hope it is.

anyway, whatever the reason, so far you have lashed out, like a boss telling a subordinate how things are, with no room for protests and no willingness to enter a debate. at the time i write this, several <other> people have already corrected a couple of your recent "points" - which seems intended to look like a list of 9 accusations against me, or 9 crimes i've committed, or 9 reasons why you're entitled to tell me "frogbert - enough!"

you haven't answered any of those few who corrected you recently either. why is that? are we somehow below you? do you only read the verdict and leave further interpretations to us? did you already make the perfect statement, with no further comments needed, from your point of view? what if you somehow made a mistake, made a bad judgement, possibly misunderstood something? wouldn't acknowledging such a potential mistake be a good thing to do - or is it maybe only hypothetical that you would make a mistake?

like i've told you already, on a couple of occasions, i'm a reasonably intelligent person, with a reasonably good take on english (despite not being a native speaker), and i have a reasonable will to consider criticism under the right circumstances. the first thing that needs to be in place is <dialogue>. so far you have wanted to be my judge, not at all interested in stepping down to the floor and meeting me at an equal level. i feel that rather condescending, and from the available evidence i have no reason to conclude that your intellectual level is way beyond mine, making any discussion between the two of us impossible or pointless from the start.

well, this will be your last chance, as far as i'm concerned. i will go through your list of evidence, accusations, or whatever it was supposed to be. you had 9 points, and i will cover 3 of them at the time. today i'll respond to your points 8, 1 and 2. after i've done that, i'll be happy to learn your reaction to my response. you can respond in your chess forum or in my player page - where doesn't matter much. i'll bring your response here anyway, if you post it elsewhere. nothing will be deleted, but other people won't be allowed to interfere on my page.

whether you judge a barangay or an individual like me, i trust you are man enough to consider your criticisms and your verdict if someone is able to demonstrate holes in your "evidence". or examples that you employ exactly the same means yourself that you criticise others (me) for using.

if you fail to enter a debate, again, then i will easily disregard anything you claim or argue about sociology in the future - and so should anybody else. if you deny to be held responsible for what you say and its potential consequences, then people should treat your "judgements" as void and empty. in one word: worthless.

if a man thinks he's infallible, then he's seriously lost it. i hope you still want to be considered an intelligent being.

Jul-26-09  frogbert: *** tpstar rebuttal - post 1 of 9 (part 1) ***

i'll start with tpstar's point 8, the following:


8) If you want the C-A-R-L-S-E-N page to get better, why keep bringing back all this old damage? Everyone knows what happened before; Don't Look Back. Stop trying to win a draw.


these few lines contain no less than 3 claims:

i) i keep bringing back old damage

ii) everyone knows what happened before

iii) and lastly the implicit one: i don't want the carlsen page to get better (since if i did, i wouldn't keep bringing back old damage)

now, before i consider these claims as they stand, it's rather interesting to consider what <tpstar himself> does, when wanting to set me straight. does he avoid bringing back "old damage"? does he concentrate on the way forward and recent events only? no, not at all. actually, he finds it appropriate to dig nearly two years into the past - into material which so far had been untouched this time around, complex material that represents painful memories for me and the "death" of my first "personality", a "character"/nick i used for more than 3 years.

if we're really going to take tpstar's claims seriously, why did he have to do that? after all he just said that "everyone knows what happened before" - so if everyone knows, why does he need to explicitly refer to things said and done august 31st 2007, april 12th 2008, april 20th 2008, april 23rd 2008 and april 1st 2009? apparently he doesn't trust his own claim.

hence, tpstar feels he needs to bring back a lot of "old damage" to prove his points, even if his message supposedly is "don't look back" and "concentrate on chess". and by his own words, he's reiterating things that "everyone knows" - at least that's one argument why <anybody else> shouldn't talk about the past. but if anybody else shouldn't, then there's really no reason why tpstar should either? unless other rules apply for tony than for me, of course. that would be strange, wouldn't it?

also, assuming that tpstar (unlike me) wants the carlsen page to get better, why does he <repeatedly> bring back old damage in his efforts to do so? he dug up a lot of old damage now, and in april, last time he felt he had to set me straight, he also dug deep, and referred to my "dark history" on, prior incidents (according to his fallible memory) and generally everything he could get hold of since i sat my feet here. would he do that if he wanted the carlsen page to get better, or is this another case of "one rule for frogbert, another rule for tpstar"?


returning to the claims: yes, i'd wish it wouldn't be necessary to touch old dirt - in itself it doesn't do any good. but the conclusion that since i occasionally feel forced to clear up things that happened in the past (for reasons i'll return to shortly), i do not care for improving the carlsen page - that conclusion is completely invalid. hence implicit claim number 3 is false too: i do seriously care for the carlsen page - way too much, probably - and i've sacrificed a lot to keep it reasonably detached from the carlsens, with enough distance to keep it a place where you don't have to be a fan with correct opinions to fit in. i'll return to this in my response to point 9.

claim number 2 was that "everyone knows what happened before", and hence, repeating it isn't needed. of course that claim is false in many ways. first, a lot of readers do <not> know what happened before - even rotk who's been around for a while, or jfq, knows quite little about what went on on the carlsen page back in 2006, 2007. and there are lots of people who are much more clueless about previous episodes.

secondly, among those who have some idea about what indeed "happened before", there is hardly any concensus on most issues.

hence, you can make almost random claims or accusations about something in the past, and some people will be ready to believe you - or even confirm it - no matter how wrong or debatable it might be. which brings us to claim number 1, that "i keep bringing old damage back".

how did you get to that conclusion, tpstar? you seem to be holding me responsible for "old damage" resurfacing on the carlsen page, but did you make any real investigation to find out <what> old damage i recently mentioned, and possibly <why> i happened to do that?

Jul-26-09  frogbert: *** tpstar rebuttal - post 1 of 9 (part 2) ***

here's a little list of efforts to stir up reactions, by going back to previous issues debated and by making provoking comments, starting july 15th:


post 1:

<Never seen Karjakin or others on a <HOLIDAY> of almost a year, meanwhile playing chess against various opponents in a stimulating environment..backed up by his entire family and enoug money and sponsors to make such a trip.>

(the poster knows in advance that it was no holiday)

post 2:

<(intentionally) wrong question.. >

(comment to a discussion between alexmagnus and myself, implicit claim: i'm distorting the picture on purpose by <intentionally> asking the wrong question)

same post:

<Sure you can. If you wanted to.>

(more claims about my intentions)

post 3:

<Surely not enough for a tour around europe's best tournaments.>

(this implicitly said that carlsen had sponsors that paid so he could go for a tour around "europe's best tournaments" - very unlike karjakin - and completely untrue to the real past events, presumedly also known by the poster)

post 4: (stepping it up a notch)

<guys. Not to insult anyone, but I was just reminded of a brilliant poem I read a while back.>

(who's digging into the past now, to something that caused "damage" in april? wow - it's rotk, and who's ready to help?)

post 5: (nobody is flattered? no?)

<tpstar: A Magnus haiku ...>

post 6:

< delete the poem?>

(dig dig dig)

post 7:

<tpstar: [tries to link to the old poem, the posting of which caused damage - 3,5 months old damage]

I'm with the majority on this one. His personal life is his business. [...]>

(so therefore you play along with the obvious provocation attempts, using "old damage" to see if it can become good as new, since you respect his personal life?)

same post:

<Best not to bring it up again, <if you want to stay undeleted>. ;-D>

(and here you dig deep in your arsenal of old attacks, reusing an old quote of mine that ticked you to set me straight back in april - who's digging up <old damage> did you say?)

post 8:

<Apparently another decent fellow followed the <let's all ignore rotk> hordes:>

(and rotk does it again, alluding to the "old damage" of april 2008, when some carlsen page regulars put rotk on ignore)

post 9:

<and please don't threaten me on fics>

(accusing <me> of threatening rotk on fics - what kind of old damage might rotk be bringing up by doing that? have you got any idea - at all?)

post 10: (my effort to brush it off lightly, to allow rotk to change his mind, and to spare us more digging into "old damage")

<what kind of threats am i making? with which user? just curious. :o)>

post 11: (but we insist)

<I don't think it's funny..>

post 12: (more digging)

<lol. Now you (!) are lecturing me about groundless accusations?>

post 13: (saying clearly that i <know> who attacked him)

<I'll ignore the questions you already know the answer to.>

post 14: (in acirce's forum)

<He identified himself as being Fb and I am inclined to believe it, based on his behavior there and here over the years and his false and "detailed" claims of me doing the same in the past>

(arguing with my behaviour "over the years" - even my behaviour on fics, where i stopped being a regular in the mid 90s - and about my claims in the past)

Jul-26-09  frogbert: *** tpstar rebuttal - post 1 of 9 (part 3) ***

at this point, after 5 days of nonsense and digging in the past, i make one single post about the previous accusations i'd presented, pointing out the <very clear difference> - rotk essentially told acirce that <he didn't know> who threatened him, while my case was different.

post 15: (by me)

<an <identified kibitzer> created two different email accounts in <my name> and sent threats to one of my real email addresses. note that i write <<<<identified>>>>."

what does rotk write the next day, in response to fincher:

post 16:

<I won't stop bringing up certain subjects, obiding the rules, just because some of you react on it with agression or ridicule. If these people want a pleasant site they would have done well to ignore both my question and the answer I got.>

in other words, he feels entitled to try whatever provocations he can think of, and the responsibility is on others to ignore him. no matter if he digs up old damage again and again, he's got no responsibility for the potential consequences.

who got the snowball rolling, tpstar? who tried the best he could to stir up a reaction using "old damage"? he even accused me for making threats on fics and on pokerstars (naming a "norwegian user" having my old avatar as his pokerstars avatar - how likely is that, tpstar?)

and he kept making references to <other> old stuff continously, when the snowball was rolling:

post 17:

<Based on your recent posts it is again clear that it is you who is emailing and plotting behind the scenes. Apparently it works again.>

post 18:

<after all you said several times that I am a criminal.>

post 19:

<Except that you managed to drive [angslo] away from this site>


who wins the "old damage" competition? rotk started it. you played along with him and added your own. and finally when rotk started with groundless accusations that i'd threatened him various places, i felt the need to react somehow, showing the difference between empty claims and claims that can be backed up.

in the lead-in to the most recent carlsen page trouble, you didn't just do your share of bringing up old damage, you clearly beat me to it, even with two different pieces, and you assisted the snowball roller the best you could. when angslo chimed in with nothing but "old damage" you understood his "frustration" so very well, and let him use your forum for posting <more lies> about what i supposedly have done in the <past>.

who's hell-bent on destroying the atmosphere on the carlsen page - who initiates the drama? here's part of my reply to angslo:

<angslo, you're pretty naive to blame anyone but rotk for the recent "drama" on this page. what did he do yesterday?

1) first he reacted to a post of mine on the forum by reposting part of the "if carlsen is gay" "haiku" by tpstar, here on the carlsen page - perfectly citing it word for word, pretending he didn't "remember" the rest of it. why, oh why did he do that?

2) then he throw into the mix clear accusations that i'm making threats towards him on fics (where i don't play) and on pokerstars (where i'd never set my feet before yesterday).

please explain how <i> am making a drama, on that backdrop? my first reaction to the ridiculous "threats" accusation was joking. then rotk insisted to be treated "seriously". but when asked about shreds of evidence, he run off to acirce's forum saying "i don't know".>

in conclusion, your main claim that i "keep bringing back old damage" is completely out of context, it disregards entirely that somebody else went a long way to provoke such a thing - including grave accusations - and finally that <you yourself, tony palmer> beat me to it by bringing back old damage in companionship with the main provocateur. you even pitted in your own, personal contribution.

i'm looking forward to consider the point where you talked about my "double standards".

Jul-26-09  frogbert: due to the space needed to cover point 8, point 1 and 2 will be addressed later, possibly tomorrow. their posts will be notably shorter.
Jul-27-09  frogbert: reposts from tpstar forum:


*[returnoftheking]: Hello.
I appreciate you sticking your neck out on the C page.

But I can't agree with:

<<rotk> <angslo> You have both been disciplined before, and you are supposed to Leave Him Alone. If you would honor that, we'd all be fine.>

I doubt that. Before and after me many people have been attacked. That's not my or Angslo's fault and would have happened without us as well. And recently, it was not me who started to talk about others.

p.s. I hope you and timhortons find a way to co-exist; he might even leave this site and he too is imo basically a very nice chess loving guy; although he may have said terrible things to you.

please delete this pollution (after reading) and all the best to you! + compliments for the poem of course..


*[frogbert]: <he too is imo basically a very nice chess loving guy>

rotk, nice of you to try to mediate between tpstar and tim, but i'm worried by the way you <label people> as "very nice" or "very bad" or similar. people aren't this or that - not you, not me, not tpstar and not tim. everyone does good <and> bad.

if you were to write <one sentence> about me, like you just did about tim, what would it be? please give it a shot - and try thinking afresh; i know you have filled a page of text in your profile with something you consider to be a good description of me (an obsessive sign, if you ask me) - but now, try to use <one sentence>. i just want your honest description - and hopefully you will be able to ponder it afterwards, whatever you write. don't be shy - say what you think.


*[returnoftheking]: If I'd give my <honest description> you'd probably get angry. I'll just say that I defenitely believe in "good" and "bad" people, but I have no interest in a discussion about it, especially not here.

[(rotk posts "an exercise" from a tony palmer game)]


*[frogbert]: <If I'd give my <honest description> you'd probably get angry.>

no, i would be happy. it would prove my point.

<I'll just say that I defenitely believe in "good" and "bad" people,>

i've understood so much, and i think it's an unfortunate belief to hold.

Jul-28-09  frogbert: repost from tpstar's forum:


*[frogbert]: i don't know if tpstar will allow this - i guess i'll found out, but anyway:

i haven't labled angslo or condemned him as a bad person. i don't want to do any deep psychological evaluation, but here's my simple take on it: i consider angslo a generally intelligent, nice, civil person that also is a bit sensitive and emotional, somewhat like myself in that respect. as i've mentioned before, i think he felt "rejected" by me at some point (and possibly rightly so, because i <didn't> want a too tight association with him, for a couple of reasons i won't go into here) - and somehow this "rejection" really bothered angslo.

i know angslo disagrees, but i'm convinced the reasons of his current anger towards <me> (not others in general) is more linked to personal issues than anything i might have done or said to anybody else.

i have a "really nice collection" of insults and name-callings in my inbox, but i have no problem putting those behind me. i hope angslo will get over his current feelings towards me, for his own sake as much as for mine, and that he - if he likes to - can return to being a generally likeable kibitzer on the carlsen page and elsewhere on

there's no hate in me towards angslo or anybody else - i only get concerned if/when people start to believe things i consider untrue about myself. in that respect i'm as much worried about tpstar's considerations about me as those of angslo.

anyway, i hope things can be sorted out.

Jul-28-09  zarg: <frogbert: i'm a bit worried if/when fide starts using sonas as the de facto expert in this area - but some of the "blame" probably belongs to chessbase, who's been touting sonas as The Expert for a long time now.>

Not diagreeing, but it is good that Sonas/chessbase put these issues out in the open, so that the topics can be commented on and discussed, before e.g. changes are made to the rating system.

<anyway, if sonas has been granted access to fide's old data (their result database, in whichever form it is), i might try to achieve something similar via the norwegian rating officer>

Excellent idea. Hopefully FIDE will approve such a move, it would be in everyones interest if an independent analysis could be performed.

Aug-01-09  frogbert: reposting from tpstar's forum (where everything i post seem to disappear for some odd reason ;o)


*[frogbert]: ah, more new standards, tpstar? allowing achieve to place other kibitzers in the "looney bin" and keeping his post, while deleting comments to it?

i'm getting more and more impressed with your ability to pose as a neutral observer while you're so obviously taking sides. maybe i can start kissing some ass like one of our dutch friends do - will that change your style? i mean, digging out one of your games and pretending i studied it deeply, for instance?

btw, what was this supposed to mean:

<Any future posts that only perpetuate disputes will be removed, and that goes for all parties.>

where does it say "except for achieve", who's an old friend and (then) foe of yours truely?

or maybe it should say "except everyone who agrees with me - those are allowed to perpetuate whatever" ... ;o)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Rolfo: frogbert, there is much more in life than having posted in tpstar's forum :) (I did it recently, but my post which I think was both wise and proper didn't get a long shelf life;)
Aug-01-09  frogbert: rolfo, sure - the thing is that tpstar thinks it's very important to school others about how to behave on in particular, he sees it as his task to tell <me> how to behave. in other words, he'a posing as <webmaster> here, while accusing others for "telling others what do or say" - and for being "webmasters".

for some reason it appears that tpstar doesn't get that his role here is no different than mine; he's a kibitzer, not the webmaster - at least when he's posting as the normal kibitzer tpstar.

one way to tell the difference, is that the real webmaster responds when i ask questions, while tpstar exclusively talks <to> me, not <with> me, as i pointed out in your forum once. somebody should really tell him that he's violating the abc of effective personal communication that way. :o)

Aug-01-09  frogbert: "oops, i did it again" ...

another repost from the tpstar forum!


<You cannot however decide what someone allows to stand on his <own> forum.>

oh, sure tpstar decides. the problem, rotk, is that he's blowing his own cover by the way he keeps and deletes messages. i don't really mind him doing that - it's about time that people (who care) see what the "standard" of tpstar actually is.

<So let's not post about it here when our messages are deleted.>

rotk, what it <actually> comes down to, is that you stop making personal comments about me practically everywhere i post.

yesterday you ran into the nakamura page making personal comments about me, talking about what i supposedly did other places too.

and just after that, you ran into the arpad elo page, making another of your signature "funny" comments (again, about me) when keypusher credited me for making interesting posts (despite having a somewhat "astringent" style, as he put it).

and almost regardless what i post on the carlsen page, you're there with your "clever" comments.

free your mind, buddy. and clean out your profile if you want to have a clean conscioussness - if that concept means anything to you.

here's a little challenge: see if you're able to respond to my posts for 1 week without making explicit or implicit comments about me, my motives or something i've said or done before. see if you're able to stick to the actual contents of my posts and not what you read into them, based on your belief that i'm "bad" or "evil" or whatever.

if you can do that for a week, there's hope that your obsession can be cured. if not, then i doubt it. you don't want to be worse than me, do you? cause i can do the same regarding your posts <easily>. you can even let the dang prejudiced and lopsided <tpstar> be our judge of who's better at treating the other's posts in a good-mannered and constructive way.

i've thrown the glove in your face... :o)

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 242)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 153 OF 242 ·  Later Kibitzing>
NOTE: You need to pick a username and password to post a reply. Getting your account takes less than a minute, totally anonymous, and 100% free--plus, it entitles you to features otherwise unavailable. Pick your username now and join the chessgames community!
If you already have an account, you should login now.
Please observe our posting guidelines:
  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, or duplicating posts.
  3. No personal attacks against other users.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
Blow the Whistle See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform an administrator.

NOTE: Keep all discussion on the topic of this page. This forum is for this specific player and nothing else. If you want to discuss chess in general, or this site, you might try the Kibitzer's Café.
Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of, its employees, or sponsors.
Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!

home | about | login | logout | F.A.Q. | your profile | preferences | Premium Membership | Kibitzer's Café | Biographer's Bistro | new kibitzing | chessforums | Tournament Index | Player Directory | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | advertising | contact us
Copyright 2001-2014, Chessgames Services LLC
Web design & database development by 20/20 Technologies