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

Hans Arild Runde
H Runde 
Photograph copyright © 2007 Raymond Boger.  
Number of games in database: 19
Years covered: 1997 to 2008
Last FIDE rating: 1946
Highest rating achieved in database: 2054
Overall record: +7 -5 =7 (55.3%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games.

Repertoire Explorer
Most played openings
E12 Queen's Indian (2 games)
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, 45 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 YearEvent/LocaleOpening
1. H Runde vs A Groenn  ½-½551997ASKOs KM , gr. AB07 Pirc
2. O Hole vs H Runde  ½-½412000ASKOs HTA04 Reti Opening
3. C F Ekeberg vs H Runde  ½-½662001Teams East 00/01, 1. divA11 English, Caro-Kann Defensive System
4. H Runde vs T Gabrielsen  0-1462001ASKOs PinseB03 Alekhine's Defense
5. H Runde vs K Stokke  1-0512002Troll MastersA07 King's Indian Attack
6. H Runde vs B Thanke  1-0432002Teams East 01/02, 1.div.B90 Sicilian, Najdorf
7. H Runde vs S Johannessen 0-1262002Teams East 01/02, 1.div.B47 Sicilian, Taimanov (Bastrikov) Variation
8. Carlsen vs H Runde 1-0322002Ostlandserien 01/02 div. 1, ASKO II - AskerB29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein
9. E Hagesaether vs H Runde  ½-½562002NOR Ch RorosA08 King's Indian Attack
10. H Runde vs Morten Jensen 1-0242003ASKOs KM , gr. AB14 Caro-Kann, Panov-Botvinnik Attack
11. B Thanke vs H Runde 0-1382003NOR Team Champ , OpenB29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein
12. H Runde vs N A Mellem  1-0422005ASKOs KM , gr. AB28 Sicilian, O'Kelly Variation
13. H Runde vs B Egede-Nissen  ½-½692005Teams East 04/05, 2.divB01 Scandinavian
14. G Henriksen vs H Runde 0-1462005NOR Team Champ , OpenE12 Queen's Indian
15. O Hole vs H Runde  ½-½342006ASKOs KM , Gr AD43 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
16. K Trygstad vs H Runde  1-0602006Teams East 05/06, 1. divB43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3
17. H Borchgrevink vs H Runde  ½-½522006NOR Team ChampE12 Queen's Indian
18. J Aulin-Jansson vs H Runde 1-0502007NOR Team ChampE15 Queen's Indian
19. H Runde vs O Moen 1-0382008Norwegian 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 214 OF 242 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-14-12  frogbert: just so that i don't forget, i'll briefly give my 33. Rc1 main-line without a single variation:

33. Rc1 g5! 34. Rxc4 gxf4 35. Bxf4

click for larger view

35... Re2+ 36. Kxd3 Rxa2 37. b6 Rb2 38. Bc7 Ke6! 39. c6 Kd5! 40. b7

click for larger view

this looks grim for black, but...

40... Rb3+! 41. Rc3 Rxc3+ 42. Kxc3 Kxc6 43. b8:Q Rxb8 44. Bxb8

click for larger view

white has only one pawn left, but at least the bishop has the right colour. but is it enough?

44... Kd5 45. Kd3 a4! 46. Ke3 Ke6 47. Kf4 Kf6 - again, just in time!

click for larger view

now it's clear that white needs a zugzwang to win.

48. Be5+ Kg6 49. Bb2 Kh5!

click for larger view

unfortunately this is the <only> way to force black's king away from the defence of the f-pawn, and if white takes on f5 his king is too far away from black's a-pawn and the bishop can't both guard h2 and stop the passer. hence we must try something else:

50. Kg3 Kg6 51. Kh4 Kh6 52. Bc1+ Kg6 53. h3!? Kf6 54. Kh5 Ke5!

click for larger view

is white making progress?

55. Kg5 Ke4! 56. h4 (Kh6?? loses to f4) 56... Ke5 (or h6+) 57. h5 Ke4 58. h6 Ke5 59. Bb2+ Ke4

click for larger view

i think this is a nice final diagram: black doesn't need to protect h7 or capture white's pawn, simply because his own passers are faster and overpowers the bishop if white loses his cool.

what's the moral, if any? maybe power to the pawns. :o)

Feb-14-12  frogbert: <however, it looks like black can defend "passively" here, with 42... Kc5 improving his king. if white does nothing, then black counter-attacks via the g- or e-file, for instance 43. Rg7?! (or 43. h4 Rg8) 43... Rfe8 44. h4 Re2+ 45. Kb1 Re1+ 46. Kc2 and draws (46. Bb2? loses to Kc6, Rb8 etc.)>

it should be "46. Bc1? loses" of course.

Feb-14-12  frogbert: btw, black can actually give up his f-pawn in the following position, even if he doesn't have to:

click for larger view

assuming white tries 50. Bf6!? instead of the natural and perfectly good 50... Kg6 even 50... a3!? works for black: 51. Kxf5 a2 52. Kf4 Kg6 53. Bb2

click for larger view

the point is simply that 53... Kh6 (or Kh5) 54. Kg4 Kg6 55. h4 Kh6 56. Bd4 Kg6 57. h5+ Kh6 runs into a cute stalemate:

click for larger view

oops! :o)

Feb-14-12  frogbert: there are some funny lines with under-promotion in the 33. Kc3 variation. in the position after 42. Rxh7 in the "main line" where i showed the slightly "passive" but seemingly sufficient defence with 42... Kc5 there were options:

click for larger view

the more counter-attacking approach with 42... Rfe8!? is also interesting. as a first illustration, let's consider 43. Bc7?! Re2+ 44. Kc3 (Kc1? Rg8! winning for black) 44... Rdd2!

click for larger view

here, 45. b8:Q?? is mate in two, after 45... Rc2+ 46. Kd4 Re4 mate - and <all> black pieces left (including the king and the a5 pawn) participated in delivering mate. and 45. b8:N+ Kb5 46. a4+ Kxa4 47. Kxc4 is slightly better for black.

white has better than 43. Bc7?! though:

43. Rf7 a4! and here

a) 44. Kc3! Kc5 45. Rxf5+ Kc6 46. Rf7 Kb5 47. Rc7 Rd3+ 48. Kc2 Rdd8 49. Bg3 a3 and white struggles with making progress:

click for larger view

b) 44. Bc7!? is funny, due to 44... Rd3! 45. b8:N+ [but we need to look at 45. b8:Q too: 45... Re2+ 46. Kc1 Re1+ 47. Kb2

click for larger view

now, unless the existence of the accurate 47... a3+! black would've been in trouble, since after 47... Re2? 48. Ka1! the queen comes to the rescue on b1, breaking the perpetual (and winning a rook for the b-queen). 47... a3+ 48. Kc2 is still a perp, though.]

back to the "real" line:

47... Kd5 48. Rxf5+ Ke4 49. Rf2 Re6! controlling the knight. black should again draw:

click for larger view

Feb-14-12  frogbert: i need someone to proofread for me...

click for larger view

<very beautiful! just-in-time defence :o) and after 39. Bc7 Re8 40. Bf4 Re2 it's a draw by repetition.>

that's supposed to read <39. Bd2> - 39. Bc7? or 39. b8:Q? would force black to mate on c2 ...

Feb-15-12  frogbert: <Curious to see your miracle save.>

is the miracle confirmed, shams? :o)

Feb-15-12  Shams: <is the miracle confirmed, shams?>

Well, I haven't had time to go through all of it, but it looks great and really is an instructive game. I will return to it again. Don't be offended, but I'm not wrong in assuming you've had some help here, am I? If it's all you then it is very impressive indeed.

I only ask because I'm curious about using engines for endgame analysis; I've done very little of it. Even a couple years ago I could still be heard saying that engines weren't much help in endgames, but that surely stopped being true a long time ago, if it ever was.

Feb-15-12  frogbert: <I'm not wrong in assuming you've had some help here, am I?>

certainly not, of course i had to use engine assistance - and good amounts of it too.

<I'm curious about using engines for endgame analysis>

well, they can't be trusted blindly - and in particular if don't have etbs installed. but paired with some decent understanding i think they provide invaluable help. sometimes you need to check that the engine doesn't flag a "virtual" advantage (like winning a piece but ending up in a theoretically drawn position), other times it must be herded a little because you, the human, actually understand better the <idea> behind a manouver that it already tried in a slightly different (but conceptually similar) position - that obviously isn't present in its cache. buy you "cached" the idea!

also, as carlsen often demonstrates, end games are full of tactics and related nuances that i will surely miss most of, even when analysing a position with all the time in the world available. of course, you will learn a lot from the latter too, but it's not that useful if what you really want to learn is the "ultimate truth" about a position.

in this case my goal was indeed to figure out <if> there was a theoretical save for black, against beste play. in a practical game on our level nobody would've played even close to perfect here, but even so the defence would've probably been to tough for me; while i understand that in order to defend one has to

1) get the king into the action on the queen-side

2) create counter-play via the open file(s) (opening new ones if necessary)

the various tactical (implementational) elements of doing that demand a lot. as i said initially, my "instinct" was to play Kf7 and/or put the f-rook in the e-file. both have tactical refutations - it simply doesn't work... :o)

Feb-15-12  frogbert: <an instructive game>

well, if you count the end game that never was played, it indeed was. ;o)

but by all means; <white's exchange sacrifice> that was the starting point here is indeed brilliant, when followed up correctly. from the black side of it, i think the crucial importance of breaking up the e- and/or g-file to create counterplay is the main take-away. and even at initial cost of 2-3 pawns in some lines.

Feb-15-12  frogbert: <a1) 46. Re1 (with the idea of supporting the b7-b8 advance from b1) is met with 46... Rg2+! 47. b8:Q+ Rxb8 48. Bxb8 c3!>

man, how hard is it to punch in these lines correctly?!

46... Rg2+ <47. Kc1 Kb3> 48. b8:Q+ Rxb8 49. Bxb8 c3 etc.

countering a check with a check is sometimes a legal move, but here it wasn't ...

Feb-18-12  achieve: <frogbert> Apologies for not answering your response at Dom's a few weeks ago, also regarding the solitaire chess, but I had some issues to deal with at that moment and later found that you had already answered through Buro. He ain't all that bad at solving puzzles.

Good to see you active on many fronts and offer some deep analysis.

I even went to the lengths of trying to compose my own 8-men problem, then exhausted threw the pieces back in the box!

But a belated thanks for introducing that addictive and interesting game.

Feb-19-12  frogbert: no worries, achieve. apparently it can be rather addictive: when my father (rated 1400 in norway, at least equivalent to ca 1600 fide) visited last month, he solved all 60 puzzles in the box before he left. :o)
Feb-20-12  frogbert: shams, the past kibitzing info you get for a certain user covers a specific numbers of recent post, but limited to max 10 different forums. hence, if i spread all my kibitzes over 4-5 forums over a long enough period of time (to produce the necessary number of posts - i haven't bothered to figure out the exact number although it wouldn't be very hard), then only 4-5 forums will show up.

if you're really curious about the number, you can post bogus posts in your own chessforum (and clean up afterwards) until your chess forum is the only thing that shows up in your list. then count the posts. or you could simply ask on the forum. :o)

Feb-24-12  frogbert: i've created a new "tool" that makes it easier to "edit" posts, i.e. to copy and change a post, deleting the original and posting again, when you realized that you forgot something, made a silly spelling mistake, etc.

see my profile and chessforum for more details.

enjoy. :o)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Bureaucrat: Your new tool is cool. It also makes your "broken link converter" somewhat redundant :-).

Only one thing: At first I thought the links to the posts were displayed <below> the posts, but then I realized that they were on top of the posts... That somehow wasn't intuitive to me. I don't have any great ideas on how to improve the design, though. Perhaps if the grey line on top of the posts included the date and the link:

Feb-24-12 chessforum

I think the text about copying links could be removed.

No real need to change anything, though, as those are minor issues. I will definitely be using the new tool :-).

Premium Chessgames Member
  Bureaucrat: There ya go... the link I posted was converted to a "CG link". To see the message the way I wrote it, use the unparser :-D
Feb-24-12  frogbert: <It also makes your "broken link converter" somewhat redundant >

certainly. i just haven't come to removing it yet, and i also need to see if the new one works properly first. :o)

<At first I thought the links to the posts were displayed <below> the posts, but then I realized that they were on top of the posts... That somehow wasn't intuitive to me. I don't have any great ideas on how to improve the design, though.>

i guess you simply need to rtfm - i actually pointed out <where> the link was in the description on the forum. ;o)

<I think the text about copying links could be removed.>

yeah, probably. just wanted to make that feature abundantly clear for "new users". :o)

seemingly you had few problems figuring out how to use it, but then you're probably among the sharper knives around here, too. but it should be really simple, i think.

Feb-24-12  frogbert: i added a couple of borders and moved the date, but i'm not sure the latter makes a big difference. the borders possibly help a little to make it clear(er) to which post the link belongs. anyway. instead of spending more time on this, i really need to force myself to complete the f.a.q. for the other presumedly more widely appealing "tool". ;o)

however, before that - "real" work. :o)

Premium Chessgames Member
  Bureaucrat: <i added a couple of borders and moved the date, but i'm not sure the latter makes a big difference.>

The new design looks good!

<i guess you simply need to rtfm - i actually pointed out <where> the link was in the description on the forum. ;o)>

Yes, I did notice, eventually. My method:

1) Try it out
2) Figure it out
3) Read your explanations

Unlike my dad, who always reads the manual <before> trying anything at all, I like to push buttons first and read later.

Feb-24-12  frogbert: i guess i'm somewhere inbetween. i like finding out how things work on my own, but i also enjoy reading manuals :o)
Feb-26-12  nimh: Here are five easiest three-movers from that do not end in mate and have at least 25 solving attempts.

click for larger view

1. Rxe8 Rxe8 2. Qxe8+ Qxe8 3. Rxe8+ *

click for larger view

1... Rxc2 2. Rxc2 Rxc2 3. Qxc2 Qxe3 *

click for larger view

1. Rxd8 Rxd8 2. Rxd8 Qxd8 3. Qxf7+ *

click for larger view

1. Rd8+ Kb7 2. Nd6+ Kc6 3. Nxf7 Nxf7 *

click for larger view

1... Rxd5 2. Rxd5 Qxd5 3. Qxd5 Rxd5 *

And five hardest puzzles, also 3 moves long:

click for larger view

1. Qd1 Bf6 2. Rxh5 Qxh5 3. Nxc8 *

click for larger view

1... Be2+ 2. Kg2 Qd3 3. Rh2 Qxd2 *

click for larger view

1. Raxf6+ Kh5 2. Ra6 Rxg2+ 3. Kxg2 *

click for larger view

1. Be5 Qh6 2. d6 Rd4 3. Bxd4 *

click for larger view

1. Ra3 Bxe5 2. Rxc4 Re8 3. Rxd3 *

Where's the difference? Has it something to do with the amount of material, or the symmetry? Hardly, the average material is 50.05 for easiest and 44.85 for hardest puzzles. Neither is symmetry the cause, as the average amount of material in symmetry is bigger for more difficult problems; 3.6 - 4.2. The difference between two best moves is in all puzzles large and almost identical on average for both sets; 4.33 - 4.23.

Remarkably, both Stockfish and Rybka were able to spot the best moves and winning advantage in less than 1 second for all puzzles. For engines the difficulty is virtually nonexistent.

So, what factors make some puzzles more difficult than the other ones? What do you see?

Feb-26-12  frogbert: is that a rhetorical question, nimh?

to me, and for a human, it's rather clear why the easy ones are easy - they all had one single, simple theme where the execution was essentially "taking many times on the same square" and collect/win material. except the last one, where you force the king into a fork and win material.

neither of the hard ones had any "bang-bang-bang" sequence of straight-forward moves, imo.

however, if you're asking how we can use an engine (or our own specially crafted heuristic) to differentiate between these scenarios, i have no experience or knowledge to offer at the moment. but i guess you might have?

Feb-27-12  nimh: I want to find out which specific move features make it harder for humans to find them. There's nothing rhetorical here. Also it's not about anything related to engines.

You mentioned two factors

1) repeated captures on the same square
2) the occurrence of one simple theme

Very good, can you name any more of them, frogbert? anyone?

Here are three puzzles, all 17 moves long, yet easier than the five most difficult three-movers posted above.

click for larger view

click for larger view

click for larger view


Mar-10-12  Blunderdome:

click for larger view

Black to play. According to Nalimov, only one move holds the draw. Anyone want to venture a guess?

Mar-11-12  frogbert: finally a live rating update from me again:

<if> all the 4 team games i played against fide-rated players in the 2011-2012 season will be sent to fide for rating, then my fide rating of may 2012 will be 2054. (if only the two games from the national league will be rated, it'll be 2045. ;o)

since patzers like me are rated with a k of 15, my actual *live* fide rating is 2053,95 before rounding. :o)

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 242)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 214 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 members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No posting personal information of members.
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 | Notable Games | World Chess Championships | Opening Explorer | Guess the Move | Game Collections | ChessBookie Game | Chessgames Challenge | Store | privacy notice | contact us
Copyright 2001-2018, Chessgames Services LLC