no, not just a rounded bevel
If you try to round over a whole bevel ala sellers, it'll still chip. The modification at the edge is much more drastic, and then no rounding behind it (the angle behind it is shallow).
The trouble with the idea that the bevel makes strength is that it creates fatness where it's not needed, and it doesn't address where the failure actually occurs.
Confirmation bias and no actual examination causes people to come up with all kinds of goofy ideas (such as the idea that the convex bevel makes for a stronger edge - it makes no difference).
The geometric modification is more drastic and occurring over a couple of thousandths. It's sort of a difference between "common sense" and observation.
There's a good saying that I heard from a guy busting knife myths. You propose an outcome, then you test it and observe. If what you observe differs from what you expect, then the next time you run the experiment, what you expect should be what you have observed.
To fail to recognize the value of actual observations is a trap. If they're unexpected, you can explain them, and maybe even explain when they're not valid, but if observations don't match your expectations and you can't explain why, then your observations are you expectation in the future.
Here's another example:
* I planed about 50k feet of wood to test iron durability in the last couple of years. I rarely do this stuff anymore unless I think someone else will do a rubbish test and it will provide false conclusions (like the FWW style reviews of chisels deciding what's good by smashing a chisel an inch deep into a piece of wood - we don't work that way).
* When I did this testing, it's clear that V11 lasts about twice as long as *good* O1 in clean wood
* When I plane something other than clear smoothing, I don't see the same benefit. I do "actual work" most of the time and never perceived this 2-1 interval occurring, but planed 3 separate tests with V11 vs. various irons and the intervals remained the same in all 3 within literally a couple of percent (e.g., observation one may have been 101%, 2 would've been 98% - there wasn't much there to suspect more trials would change things).
* going back to regular work, I made a gaggle of XHP irons (they also tested about the same against O1). But when I went back to work, I didn't find them as nice to use in anything other than clear smoothing.
So, my first supposition was that V11 was marginally better than O1 in a durability test (there were other surprising observations - it does have less resistance through the wood and leave a brighter surface off of the same sharpening stone). It turned out to be 2 to 1 in long grain. Going back to working with it in heavy work seems to prove that OK, the first test is true. But in the cycle of actual work, I don't perceive the same benefit, because things come into play (like knots, silica, dirt). Those types of issues change the outcome because they're not involved in a standardized test.
I ran into a lot of resistance to the idea that XHP lasts twice as long in clean wood (especially if someone doesn't like Lee Valley), but knife folks have recently run (probably before I did my test) abrasion tests through a standardized machine and found the same thing - it's relatively long wearing, but the flip side is that it's not that tough.
if you don't care about chips in irons, then it doesn't matter - it lasts a long time, longer than "normal" irons. I hate chipping - at some point, it slows down dimensioning.
I have pictures of edges that will resist silica chipping, but people usually have irrational reactions like "you can't do things in thousandths".
We do things in thousandths all the time and have discretion to know where they matter and where they don't - we just don't ever measure them.