chessgames.com
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: 25
Years covered: 1997 to 2008
Last FIDE rating: 1965 (1942 blitz)
Highest rating achieved in database: 2054
Overall record: +9 -9 =7 (50.0%)*
   * Overall winning percentage = (wins+draws/2) / total games.

Repertoire Explorer
Most played openings
B29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein (2 games)
E12 Queen's Indian (2 games)
B28 Sicilian, O'Kelly Variation (2 games)


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

HANS ARILD RUNDE
(born Jul-07-1972, 53 years old) Norway

[what is this?]
Contributor to Chessgames.com 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 http://chess.liverating.org/.

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: http://blog.magnuschess.com/1262373...)


Try our new games table.

 page 1 of 1; games 1-25 of 25  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. T J Svensen vs H Runde  1-0472002Troll MastersD48 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav, Meran
6. H Runde vs M Kahn  1-0642002Troll MastersB28 Sicilian, O'Kelly Variation
7. O Rause vs H Runde  1-0182002Troll MastersB22 Sicilian, Alapin
8. H Runde vs P van Hoolandt  0-1472002Troll MastersA02 Bird's Opening
9. H Runde vs S Martinsen  0-1402002Troll MastersC02 French, Advance
10. H Runde vs K Stokke  1-0512002Troll MastersA07 King's Indian Attack
11. H Runde vs B Thanke  1-0432002Teams East 01/02, 1.div.B90 Sicilian, Najdorf
12. H Runde vs S Johannessen 0-1262002Teams East 01/02, 1.div.B47 Sicilian, Taimanov (Bastrikov) Variation
13. Carlsen vs H Runde 1-0322002Ostlandserien 01/02 div. 1, ASKO II - AskerB29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein
14. E Hagesaether vs H Runde  ½-½562002NOR Ch RorosA08 King's Indian Attack
15. H Runde vs Morten Jensen 1-0242003ASKOs KM , gr. AB14 Caro-Kann, Panov-Botvinnik Attack
16. B Thanke vs H Runde 0-1382003NOR Team Champ , OpenB29 Sicilian, Nimzovich-Rubinstein
17. H Runde vs N A Mellem  1-0422005ASKOs KM, gr. AB28 Sicilian, O'Kelly Variation
18. H Runde vs B Egede-Nissen  ½-½692005Teams East 04/05, 2.divB01 Scandinavian
19. G Henriksen vs H Runde 0-1462005NOR Team Champ , OpenE12 Queen's Indian
20. O Hole vs H Runde  ½-½342006ASKOs KM , Gr AD43 Queen's Gambit Declined Semi-Slav
21. K Trygstad vs H Runde  1-0602006Teams East 05/06, 1. divB43 Sicilian, Kan, 5.Nc3
22. H Borchgrevink vs H Runde  ½-½522006NOR Team ChampE12 Queen's Indian
23. P Palmo vs H Runde  0-1672007Gausdal Classics Elo opB44 Sicilian
24. J Aulin-Jansson vs H Runde 1-0502007NOR Team ChampE15 Queen's Indian
25. H Runde vs O C Moen 1-0382008Norwegian Club ChampionshipC78 Ruy Lopez
 page 1 of 1; games 1-25 of 25  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 241 OF 242 ·  Later Kibitzing>
Apr-04-13  Shams: <Pravitel> Well, I didn't read that far back, but I still think you're seeing what you want to see.

<This tournament is just one case showing how unwarranted Frogbert's position was.>

What are the other ones?

Apr-04-13  solskytz: <Shams> I agree with your observation. He also confesses to be Carlsen's fan - with fans like this, who needs enemies?
Apr-04-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Pravitel>: Do you have the vaguest notion of the meaning of the phrase 'small sample size'?
Apr-16-13  Tiggler: <perfidious: <Pravitel>: Do you have the vaguest notion of the meaning of the phrase 'small sample size'?>

However small, the sample size is bigger than it was before the tournament.

Apr-16-13  Appaz: Have to agree with <Pravitel> on this one: the finish was not convincing at all. It's not a proof a psychological weakness, but certainly weakens the claim of the contrary.

The WC match suddenly became a lot more exciting: pure chess strength may not be the most important deciding factor, and the mental robustness may play a bigger part than is to be expected.

Apr-16-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Tiggler: However small, the sample size is bigger than it was before the tournament.>

Of course, but as <Appaz> stated:

<....(T)he finish was not convincing at all. It's not a proof (of) psychological weakness, but certainly weakens the claim of the contrary.>

To what extent, or whether this is true? That remains to be seen.

May-02-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  northernfox: Here is a question for <Frogbert> or others who are knowledgeable about ELO:

Can the ELO rating system allow, in some circumstances, for a rough ELO rating to be infered for one player, who is unrated, from the results of a match with another player, who has an ELO rating.

For example, (from a recent actual circumstance), players X and Y have an 18 game match at classical time controls, where the results in favour of player X are +10 -4 =4. If player Y is ELO 1550, can a rough estimate be inferred from these results for ELO of player X?

Thanks in advance for any information on this.

May-02-13  Blunderdome: It would be a very rough estimate. That X beat Y by some score is not a great predictor of how X will fare relative to Y in the general pool of players. Eighteen games is insufficient as well. Also -- were the games played under tournament conditions?

My calculator says 1670, but that's not a number anyone should have any faith in.

May-02-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  northernfox: <Blunderdome> Thanks for the response. I am not surprised that there would be too little information in that one match to be very useful in inferring ELO.
May-13-13  frogbert: Repost from the Norway Chess page:

---

<I believe I said that if we paid attention to the ELO rating formula, we could end <at least one silly debate>, namely whether or not ratings can be used to <predict> outcomes with some degree probability, something that was being denied (but not by you I don't believe).>

pbercker, what's silly is pointing to the Elo calculation formula in order to prove that the rating system was <created> with the <intended purpose> of being able to predict outcomes. And yet, this was the "silly debate" in question, if you would've paid close attention back then. I certainly <did deny> that the purpose of the rating system is to predict the outcome of chess games. You seemed (and seem) to think that the Elo calculation formula provided some argument in this debate, and you even labeled the idea of having said debate "silly".

I can explain to you why you were wrong (and still are wrong) if you *want* me to. But you think googling this or that makes you able to settle such a debate (while labeling it "silly"). Today I offered my player page to continue our discussion, but you insisted on continuing here. I'll make the same offer again: take it somewhere where we don't bother those who don't give a damn about this off topic discussion, and it *will* be possible for you to learn something. But first you need to realize that I can teach you something.

<You're quite right ... my apologies ... I allowed myself to get sucked into another useless argument with Frogbert>

I won't bother to "argue" with you. I've offered to explain to you why your ignorance of a topic I understand much better than you was annoying me back then, and you still seem to insist on being annoying instead of accepting my offer to explain why you were wrong then (which you still are). You make wrong assumptions all the time, like when you assumed that I put you on ignore back then. Stop making those wrong assumptions based on limited knowledge - it will hurt you in a context that <does> matter some day, unlike this one.

<Your evident lack of manners doesn't bother me too much, as I can overlook it.>

No, you can't. You've just proven multiple times that instead of ignoring my seemingly bad manners and accepting my offer to talk about this subject without any "audience" in a quiet place, you would rather make personal slights based on more of your wrong assumptions. Which kind of proves that I was right in the first place when I just left you and AgentRgent to your misunderstandings and misconceptions back then.

Yes, I can be arrogant, and yes I can easily give up on people who don't deserve being informed when they're misinformed, like you are if you write and believe the following:

<I said that if we paid attention to the ELO rating formula, we could end <at least one silly debate>>

No, it just proves that you've misunderstood the purpose of the Elo rating formula. You've googled some information and not been able to wrap your mind around what it actually means. Similarly, referring to a Chessbase article proves nothing, because Chessbase has posted loads and loads of provably false information ("garbage" in plain english) about ratings, inflation and so on for years and years now. Neither Chessbase nor those who write for them are infallible in any way, and regarding the topics I'm interested in (read: chess ratings) they've provided lots and lots of <opinions>, some well-founded and others utterly unfounded, from various authors and sources, which taken together provides a totally inconsistent and incoherent picture of what ratings are and can/should be used for.

That's not really any fault of Chessbase - it's a good thing that they let people with different views and opinions voice their opinions, but it totally destroys the idea that any single view/opinion posted on Chessbase on this topic bears any importance (beyond that of being someone's opinion) or that it can be taken as "proof" of anything. Chessbase is simply a commercial player in the chess market - they aren't truth seekers or researchers, and neither are most of their external contributors.

Short summary: you're welcome to respond to this post on my player page, quoting/responding to whatever in this post you like, but I <will not> continue this exchange here, on the Norway Chess tournament page.

And again, my player page is here: Hans Arild Runde

Go Carlsen!

May-13-13  pbercker: The <intended purpose> of the ELO rating system is partly an historical question and settled accordingly.

The <purpose> and the <intended purpose> need not be the same.

That its <use> is fundamentally <predictive> with some computed probability is absolutely unarguable and was indisputably at least <part> of its <intended purpose> and part of it <current> purpose.

That <ratings> is <correlated> with <intrinsic strength> is well known. This is because <intrinsic strength> is causally related to <performance> and <ratings> are a record of that performance. As such, ratings are an <indirect> measure of <strength> and generally <intended> as such.

I generally disagree with at least 90% of what AGENTRGENT says, and I am predisposed to dislike his style of arguing as it too often veers towards nonsense and illogic. However, in a rare moment of logical lucidity he managed to summarize the entire <silly> debate quite well:

<AgentRgent: <frogbert: your description of ratings as mainly a predictive tool was and is completely wrong> I said that Elo's intention was to design a system that could reasonably predict who would win between two players. Ratings were designed to be a predictive tool using past performance as the guide. I agreed with you then and now that their failure to be perfectly accurate is not a "failure" of the system. I suppose that the main difference between us is the idea that Rating=Strength. Which honestly I don't think is really a difference of thought more than a slight difference in how we express ourselves.>

Not only is he correct, but he admirably ended by giving you the benefit of the doubt, but which only belatedly I see you did not (and do not) deserve.

End of discussion.

May-14-13  frogbert: Ok, you are a lost case, pbercker. Beyond my help, anyway.

"End of discussion" - that's hilarious, but true. I won't bother when you think you've got the answer and it's patently wrong. Let's see if I change my mind after some time. Continuing past your "end of discussion" now is simply not worth my time.

May-17-13  frogbert: Procrastinating, putting off writing the round 8 report because I'm tired... And postponing it really helps. ;o)
May-18-13  frogbert: Ok. So long, and thanks for all the fish!
May-18-13  Pulo y Gata: <frogbert> Don't panic.
May-19-13  parmetd: Love that Douglas Adams quote :)

Just stopped by your page to give you a lovely quote that you can use again and again :)

"Luck favors those who do not depend on it nor need it."

May-20-13  Fiona Macleod: Then it's probably not luck, but Talent.
May-20-13  Tiggler: <frogbert> I hope you got well lubricated with fish oil and potato vodka. Both do wonders for tired bones.
Jul-07-13  wordfunph: <froggy> Happy Birthday!
Jul-07-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  moronovich: Happy Birthday, dear <frogbert> !
Jul-10-13  MarkFinan: Has Frogbert left ceegee now? I always found him pretty helpful.
Jul-10-13
Premium Chessgames Member
  perfidious: <Mark>: Hope not, though I would understand, given the frustration he appeared to feel towards the end.

<frogbert>: Belated felicitations on your birthday, sir!

Jul-17-13  parmetd: Oh dear frogbert, where art thou?
Sep-17-13  Abdel Irada: Ribbit!

Sep-17-13  achieve: Yes, Hans Arild, I sent you an email awhile back but you haven't responded. But more importantly: how are you?
Jump to page #    (enter # from 1 to 242)
search thread:   
< Earlier Kibitzing  · PAGE 241 OF 242 ·  Later Kibitzing>

NOTE: Create an account today to post replies and access other powerful features which are available only to registered users. Becoming a member is free, anonymous, and takes less than 1 minute! If you already have a username, then simply login login under your username now to join the discussion.

Please observe our posting guidelines:

  1. No obscene, racist, sexist, or profane language.
  2. No spamming, advertising, duplicate, or gibberish posts.
  3. No vitriolic or systematic personal attacks against other members.
  4. Nothing in violation of United States law.
  5. No cyberstalking or malicious posting of negative or private information (doxing/doxxing) of members.
  6. No trolling.
  7. The use of "sock puppet" accounts to circumvent disciplinary action taken by moderators, create a false impression of consensus or support, or stage conversations, is prohibited.
  8. Do not degrade Chessgames or any of it's staff/volunteers.

Please try to maintain a semblance of civility at all times.

Blow the Whistle

See something that violates our rules? Blow the whistle and inform a moderator.


NOTE: Please keep all discussion on-topic. This forum is for this specific player only. To discuss chess or this site in general, visit the Kibitzer's Café.

Messages posted by Chessgames members do not necessarily represent the views of Chessgames.com, its employees, or sponsors.
All moderator actions taken are ultimately at the sole discretion of the administration.

Spot an error? Please suggest your correction and help us eliminate database mistakes!
Home | About | Login | Logout | F.A.Q. | 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 2001-2025, Chessgames Services LLC