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. C F Ekeberg vs H Runde  ½-½66 2001 Teams East 00/01, 1. divA11 English, Caro-Kann Defensive System
4. H Runde vs T Gabrielsen  0-146 2001 ASKOs PinseB03 Alekhine's Defense
5. E Hagesaether vs H Runde  ½-½56 2002 NOR Ch RorosA08 King's Indian Attack
6. H Runde vs S Johannessen 0-126 2002 Teams East 01/02, 1.div.B47 Sicilian, Taimanov (Bastrikov) Variation
7. H Runde vs B Thanke  1-043 2002 Teams East 01/02, 1.div.B86 Sicilian, Fischer-Sozin Attack
8. H Runde vs K Stokke  1-051 2002 Troll MastersB27 Sicilian
9. Carlsen vs H Runde 1-032 2002 Astlandserien 01/02 div. 1, ASKO II - AskerB29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein
10. B Thanke vs H Runde 0-138 2003 NOR Team Champ , OpenB29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein
11. H Runde vs M Jensen 1-024 2003 ASKOs KM , gr. AB14 Caro-Kann, Panov-Botvinnik Attack
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. K Trygstad vs H Runde  1-060 2006 Teams East 05/06, 1. divB43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3
16. H Borchgrevink vs H Runde  ½-½52 2006 NOR Team ChampE12 Queen's Indian
17. O Hole vs H Runde  ½-½34 2006 ASKOs KM , Gr AD43 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
18. J Jansson vs H Runde 1-050 2007 NOR Team ChampE15 Queen's Indian
19. H Runde vs O C 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 214 OF 243 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Feb-12-12  frogbert: i wasn't entirely sure where to stick my king after 23. Kd2 though:

click for larger view

of course, i also had to defend g7 somehow, in order to pretend that i was playing for a win. in retrospect it appears logical to play g6 in order to be able to play the king towards the queenside via d7 instead of hiding it on g8, but after a short 2 minute think i castled short (noting that Bh6 could be met with Bg6). after a couple more exchanges of minor inaccuracies (in a position that probably was drawish after the exchange of queens), we got here, with black to play:

click for larger view

white had spent only a minute for his last 3 moves, but still had much less than 4 minutes left for the remaining 11 before the time control. thinking that i had everything covered, i only considered how i could best enter the white position most effectively, and after some 3 minutes i produced my second howler of the day - 29... a5? - after which my misplaced king suddenly became a key (non-)player when white unleashed 30. Rxc4! nearly a tempo. i realized quickly that after the forced bxc4 31. b5! my position had become rather unpleasant, but there wasn't much choice and i recaptured. and was mighty surprised when 31. Kc3?? appeared on the board nearly immediately. white had only 3 minutes for his 10 last moves, but still i was very surprised that he'd played Rxc4 without realizing that 31. b5 was the only meaningful follow-up. converting only took a few more moves when the brilliant exchange sacrifice 30. Rxc4 wasn't accompanied by an equally brilliant pawn advance.

the way black saves himself in the case of 31. b5! is study-like and rather complicated. i'm nearly certain that i would've misplayed it otb; when i showed my opponent 31. b5 after the game, i certainly did not find the only defence that would've kept black afloat (but we neither spotted white's best play). [btw, black would've kept his advantage with 30... Kf7 instead of the howler i played - but why wasn't that king on d7 already ... ?]

consider the critical position, after 31. b5 (that never was played):

click for larger view

this is a position where gms would/could spread their arrows and coloured squares all over the place. after spending too many hours looking at this end game tonight, it seems like white at best can get an ending with bishop and pawn against 3 pawns for black, but where black magically saves the draw anyway.

it's well worth spending some time on, with or without an engine, depending on your preference. white's plan is pretty clear: get the rook behind his pawns, eat the black passers and push the lethal duo currently on c5 and b5. black on the other hand needs to stir up some counterplay while making sure that not too many pawns promote ...

black to move and hold the draw! :o)

[it takes around 20 moves to reach the ending where one can convince oneself that it's drawn.]

Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <frogbert> Good game and good analysis. I think you are right to note how interesting the endgame is after the variation with 31.b5 (rather inexplicably not played after White's exchange sac). Don't give your answer yet as I intend to look at it at some point.

Apart from that, the move that I'm actually most curious about is your third. The Veresov is such a rare opening. Actually, I'm sufficiently ignorant about this opening that about the best I could tell you is that <acirce> once played <3...Nbd7> in this position. ;)

Of course <3...c5> is a good move too.

I would probably play myself, and would definitely encourage my students to play, <3...Bf5>. The obvious point is that with the d1-a4 diagonal blocked I am unlikely to have to worry about b7, so getting the bishop pair and my LSB outside the pawn chain to me outweighs the prospect of doubled pawns.

Granted that this is very basic analysis, but did you consider 3...Bf5<?>

Feb-13-12  frogbert: i actually "cheated" by basing the two top-rated players of the team we were going to face, so after looking at several alternatives against the veresov (which my opponent plays too consistently, making preparation easy), i had decided to play 3... c5 up front.

3... Bf5 is certainly sound too, and logical if you prefer to solve the lsb "problem" immediately. Nbd7 also makes sense, to keep some flexibility. 3... c5 discourages an early e4 from white, and it also increases the chances for tactical play early in the game. the latter was why i decided for that line since playing through a handful games left me with an impression that my opponent wasn't particularly strong tactically.

in fact, i even considered the interesting gambit 1. d4 d5 2. Nf3 e5!? 3. dxe5 d4 which has been played by some gms (against lesser opposition). maybe not entirely sound, but with lots of practical chances.

Feb-14-12  frogbert: sorry, it should be 2. Nc3 of course. i even find it hard to *write* that move apparently. :o)
Feb-14-12  frogbert: also worth noting: 4. Bxf6 is a very common response to 3... c5, so i too was willing to take on doubled pawns with the move i chose. in short, i aimed to sharpen the play. as a general game plan i consider it correct also in retrospect, but then you can't have a blind spot for "explosives"; you might not have noticed, but both my howlers were due to missing simple tactics on the <c4> square. :o)
Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <frogbert> Well, a friend and I only had about ten minutes to look over the ending after <31.b5> and I must agree that the practical chances for players on our level to save the draw are close to nil. Curious to see your miracle save.
Premium Chessgames Member
  Sneaky: Hey Froggy, why does it say <From April 2008 to August 2011, Runde maintained an unofficial version of live FIDE ratings of leading grandmasters at>

Have you passed the torch to somebody else?

Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <Sneaky>
Feb-14-12  frogbert: <Curious to see your miracle save.>

we might take it step by step: black needs to create counterplay, and in this position that means the e-file. however, my first instinct during the game and in the post-mortem was to play Kf7, but that's too slow.

also, one is easily tempted to move the f-rook to the e-file, but the problem of that is that white wins a crucial tempo later in lines where the pawn comes to b7 - if there's a rook on a8. hence, black's first move needs to be 31... Rae8. white responds 32. Be5 naturally, and only then do we play 32... Kf7.

click for larger view

now, if white is <also> a player on our level, already here it's reasonably easy to choose a non-optimal continuation. among candidate moves i can imagine being considered by a 2000-player are, in no special order

a) b6
b) c6
c) Kc3
d) Rc1
e) Rb1

of course, white doesn't have all the time in the world either, as the black king is only two moves away from the crucial d5-square (it's a kind of diagonal walk, where the king closes in on both his own pawns and the distant passers, but going to b7 is as quick via d5 as any other route, obviously).

so, what does white try here?

Premium Chessgames Member
  Shams: <so, what does white try here?>

c) Kc3

Feb-14-12  frogbert: 33. Kc3 is a very promising attempt, indeed. black's response is forced:

33... g5!

click for larger view

and again there are several candidate moves:

a) Bd6
b) c6
c) Rxg5
d) b6
e) Kxc4

the pawn sacrifice g5 is required in order to open up the position and inject life into black's rooks.

Feb-14-12  frogbert: i'm going for lunch now and have a meeting afterwards, so we'll have to get back to this later.

it's absolutely fascinating, though.

Feb-14-12  frogbert: let me start by covering just one of the lines here, after 34. Bd6!?, which goes like this:

34. Bd6 Rg8 35. fxg5 Re2! 36. Kxc4 Rxg5!

click for larger view

(if 37. Rxg5? d2 white looks a bit silly.)

37. Rd1 Rxa2 38. c6 Rg4+

click for larger view

now there is

a) 39. Kc5 Rc2+ 40. Kd5 (40. Kb6? Rd4! 41. Be5 Rd5 wins for black) 40... Rb2 41. Kc5 Rc2+ with a draw.

[alternatives for white would be worse, like 41. c7? Rxb5+ 42. Kc6 (Bc5 Rg8) Rb3! 43. c8:Q Rc4+

click for larger view

(analysis diagram)

this reminds me about the actual end of the game, btw - where black also would "sacrifice" a rook to control the promotion square.

44. Bc5 (after 44. Kd7 Rxc8 45. Kxc8 Ke6! white is also overwhelmed by the black pawns) 44... Rxc5+ 45. Kxc5 Rc3+ 46. Kb6 Rxc8 47. Rxd3 Ke6 and wins for black.]

b) 39. Kb3 Ke6! 40. Rxd3 (40. Kxa2 Kxd6 41. Rxd3+ Kc7 42. Rd7+ Kc8 43. Rxh7 Ra4+ 44. Kb3 Rb4+ 45. Kc3 Rxb5 which is a draw) 40... Rgg2 (threatening a perpetual after say 41. c7 with Rgb2+ 42. Kc4 Rc2+ since 43. Rc3? loses) 41. Ba3 Rac2 42. Rd6+ Ke5 and black has enough counterplay.

click for larger view

the tempting 43. b6!? is met with 43... Rb2+ 44. Ka4 Rg4+ (only move - Rxb6? c7 is curtains) 45. Kxa5 Rb3! and i think it's worth another diagram:

click for larger view

rooks behind pawns! if white tries to keep the bishop longer by playing Bc5? then Rc4 takes control of the c-pawn. but it's a draw after both c7 and b7, for instance 46. b7 Rxa3+ 47. Kb6 Rg8 48. Kc7 Rc3 and white's pawns have been stopped (at the price of a rook, if necessary).

c) 39. Kxd3 Raa4 and it's again a balance of terror:

click for larger view

for instance 40. c7!? Rad4+ 41. Ke2 Rge4+ 42. Kf3 Rxd1! 43. c8:Q Rxd6 44. Qxf5+ Rf6 45. Qxf6+ Kxf6 46. Kxe4 Ke6 and a draw!

click for larger view

(btw, my "main line" starts with 33. Rc1 and not 33. Kc3 ... :o)

Feb-14-12  frogbert: and then the 34. Rxg5 line:

click for larger view

34... Rg8! and then

a) 35. b6 Rxg5 36. fxg5 Ke6 (Rxe5?? b7 Re8 c6 and wins) 37. Bf4 Kd5! 38. b7 Re2!

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.

b) 35. Rxg8?!?! (the start of long, forced line) Rxg8 36. b6! Rg2! 37. c6 Rc2+ 38. Kd4 d2 39. c7! d1:Q+ 40. Kc5 - the king hides behind the enemy pawn and we need a diagram:

click for larger view

now it's not only an exchange, but an exchange <plus> a queen. but the only available check Qg1+ loses after Bd4 and white queens with another pawn waiting on b6, so only 40... Qd7 stops the promotion and white plays 41. b7 and here only a perpetual saves <black>: 41... Qe6+ 42. Kc5 and black has nothing better than repeating:

click for larger view

42... Rb2 achieves nothing, obviously. what's the quote again - "pawns are stronger than queens in the end game"? ;o)

Feb-14-12  frogbert: and then we've come to white's last "serious attempt" after 33. Kc3!? g5!, namely 34. c6!

click for larger view

34... gxf4 (opening up as before) 35. Rg7! Ke6 36. Bxf4 Rd8! (only move - the natural Rg8 loses)

click for larger view

(analysis diagram)

picking up the h7-pawn is one alternative, but the most forcing seems to be

a) 37. b6!? d2! 38. Bxd2 Rd3+ 39. Kc2 (Kxc4?! gives black the upper hand after taking the bishop and getting away with sacrificing one rook to stop white's pawns) 39... Kd5! 40. b7! Kxc6 41. Bf4 Rdd8 42. Rxh7 and white has created another future passer, while black can't eliminate the one on b7 yet:

click for larger view

it's worth noting that 42... Rb8? is too primitive, as 43. Bxb8 Rxb8 44. Kc3! is a lost rook (or pawn) ending for black, due to white having the distant passer in the h-file compared to black's pawn in the f-file.

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.)

43. Rc7+ Kb5 44. Re7 Rg8! (again!) 45. a4+ Kb4! (Kxa3? isn't good because it loses control over c3!)

click for larger view

black is sufficiently active and draws by counter-threats against the white king.

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!

click for larger view

now the roles have changed and it's black with the material deficit and the passer, and white does best to accept the perpetual with 49. Be5 Rc2+ etc. - trying for more with 49. Bf4?! or 49. h4?! is questionable due to 49... Ra2 50. Kd1 Rxa4 and only black has winning chances.

a2) 46. Re2 Rb8 47. Bxb8 Rxb8 48. Re7 f4! and it's a draw:

click for larger view

b) 37. Rxh7!? is similar to the previous lines. 37... d2! 38. Bxd2 Rd3+ 39. Kc2

click for larger view

the difference is that c6 is protected here, so it's not obvious that Kd5 works equally well - even if it does. ;o) i'll just show one line:

39... Kd5 40. Rd7+ (40. c7 Kc5 41. a4 Kb6 also is a draw) 40... Kc5 41. Rb7 f4!

click for larger view

again, counter-play is key.

42. c7 Rxd2+! 43. Kxd2 Rc8 44. b6 f3! 45. Rb8 c3+! 46. Kxc3 f2

click for larger view

"pawns are better than ..." :o)

b1) 47. Rxc8?! f1:Q 48. Rd8 Qc4+ etc. is a perpetual, while

b2) 47. b7 Rxc7 48. Rf8 Rxb7 49. Rf5+! Kc6 50. Rxf2 Rh7 51. Kd4 isn't very hard to draw for black:

click for larger view

that concludes what i intended to say about 33. Kc3 - unless there are holes in these analyses of course.

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)

Premium Chessgames Member
  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 ...

Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 243)
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 214 OF 243 ·  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