About Andrew Rivedal
Andrew Rivedal, online known as arivedal, is a chess player who treats the clock as an adversary to outwit with speed and swagger. A Blitz enthusiast with a habit of turning tight positions into exciting fights, he blends sharp tactics with a healthy dose of humor both on and off the board.
Fans follow his rapid-fire games for learning, laughs, and the occasional cheeky comeback. For a quick look at his profile, see Andrew Rivedal.
Chess Career and Style
Since his early online days, arivedal has carved a niche in fast time controls, earning a reputation for tenacity and pragmatic decision making under pressure. His Blitz peak performance hovers around the 2600s, reflecting a high level of competitive energy in recent years.
- Longest winning streak recorded: 19 games
- Preferred time control: Blitz
- Openings of note include aggressive Sicilian paths and solid systems like the London System
- Endgames are a strong suit, with a notable tendency to grind out advantages in long sequences
Opening Spotlight
His openings showcase a balance between dynamic and strategic choices. In Blitz and Daily formats, he has found success with the following:
- Sicilian Defense: Najdorf Variation — a frequent fixture in his repertoire
- London System: Poisoned Pawn Variation — a reliable setup in practical play
- For a deeper dive, explore openings here: [[Link|opening|Sicilian Defense: Najdorf Variation]] and [[Link|opening|London System: Poisoned Pawn Variation]]
In Numbers and Bits
A quick glance at his online journey can be visualized through a rating chart and peak figures. The following placeholders enrich the profile for interactive viewers:
- Blitz journey:
- Peak Blitz rating: 2604 (2025-06-11)
- Profile snapshot: Andrew Rivedal
Overview of your recent blitz play
You're playing with a willingness to press for active play and tactics. In blitz, this can yield sharp wins when your initiative is supported by solid king safety and quick calculations. At times, sharp sequences led to costly missteps or heavy-time pressure, especially in positional tensions where precise evaluation matters. The month-to-month trajectory suggests you’re building momentum and learning from the fast pace, which is a strong foundation for continued improvement.
What you’re doing well
- You seek dynamic, tactical chances and aren’t afraid to complicate. This suits blitz well and can overwhelm less prepared opponents.
- You’re capable of finishing positions with clear, forcing moves when you have the initiative, which helps convert advantages into wins.
- Your openness to experimenting with different openings can help you find a fit that matches your instincts and speed.
Areas to improve
- Calculation under time pressure: in some losses, lines with forcing ideas were left insufficiently verified. Build a habit of identifying a few critical forcing continuations and confirming safety before committing to a move.
- Endgame conversion: when material or initiative shifts late in the game, ensure you convert advantages with precise sequencing and avoid leaving simple checks or threats unanswered.
- Opening navigation under blitz: while variety is good, having a concise, reliable two-repertoire approach (one for White, one for Black) helps reduce decision load in the first 10 moves.
- Time management and pre-move discipline: use a quick, mental 2-minute checkpoint in every complex middlegame to avoid rushing into trades or tactical oversights.
Opening choices and how to sharpen them
Your openings show solid baseline results across several systems. To boost consistency, consider narrowing your repertoire slightly and studying a few typical middlegame ideas for each, so you can recognize plans quickly in blitz. You might find these two openings particularly fruitful to study deeper:
- One solid option to explore with Black: the Nimzo-Indian Defense family, which often leads to flexible structures and clear planning themes. Nimzo-Indian Defense
- One robust option to explore with White: systems related to the Australian Defense family, which can lead to stable, symmetrical structures with active piece play. Australian Defense
Additionally, you can review typical middlegame ideas for your go-to openings to recognize common tactical motifs faster. For quick reference, see this overview of common lines and ideas: Opening ideas overview.
Two-week training plan to boost blitz performance
- Daily tactics sprint: 15–20 minutes solving 15–25 puzzles focused on forcing lines, especially those that end with a tactic or a checkmate net. This trains pattern recognition under time pressure.
- Opening study block: pick two openings you want to rely on (one White response, one Black response) and build a concise cheat-sheet with 5 key replies and typical middlegame ideas for each. Use the openings placeholders to bookmark relevant reference material: Nimzo-Indian Defense, Australian Defense.
- Endgame focus: practice rook endings and minor-piece endings at slow tempo twice this week. Learn a simple rule set for common endings (e.g., how to activate the king, how to approach rook activity).
- Post-game review: after each blitz session, pick one win and one loss to annotate. Identify 2–3 decision points where a different move could have changed the outcome, and write down the alternative plan.
- Time-pressure simulation: run 2–3 practice games at 3 minutes on the clock with no increment, then review where you spent too much time and where you were confident. Aim to trim the critical decision points to fit within a shorter window.
Next steps and encouragement
You’ve shown promising growth in blitz. By sharpening your calculation discipline, stabilizing your opening choices, and methodically training endgames, you can convert more of your dynamic play into consistent wins. Keep leveraging your natural tactical awareness while layering in structured analysis and a tight opening plan. If you’d like, I can tailor a personalized two-repertoire plan and create a doorway-focused training schedule with specific exercises and problem sets.
🆚 Opponent Insights
| Recent Opponents | ||
|---|---|---|
| Volodymyr Medvedyk | 1W / 1L / 0D | |
| Raymond Gao | 2W / 0L / 1D | |
| Eugene Hua | 1W / 0L / 0D | |
| bogdan_lozynskyi228 | 1W / 1L / 0D | |
| suzukka | 1W / 1L / 0D | |
| ve-dzu | 0W / 1L / 0D | |
| awwmanee | 1W / 0L / 0D | |
| chessandmorechesss | 1W / 0L / 0D | |
| Most Played Opponents | ||
|---|---|---|
| pratshahir | 77W / 17L / 6D | |
| trompi13 | 33W / 18L / 3D | |
| jdpachess | 13W / 19L / 1D | |
| Xayf | 15W / 14L / 3D | |
| GraciousLeader | 7W / 19L / 2D | |
Rating
| Year | Bullet | Blitz | Rapid | Daily |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 2419 | 2591 | 1852 | |
| 2024 | 2400 | 2411 | 2355 | 1846 |
| 2023 | 2264 | 2321 | 2347 | 1841 |
| 2022 | 2303 | 2240 | 2332 | 1794 |
| 2021 | 2094 | 2111 | 2181 | 1787 |
| 2020 | 2004 | 1889 | 1832 | 1362 |
| 2019 | 1354 | 1593 | 1323 | 1415 |
| 2018 | 960 | 1291 | 1363 | |
| 2017 | 822 | 1383 | 1228 |
Stats by Year
| Year | White | Black | Moves |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2025 | 960W / 966L / 128D | 849W / 1114L / 109D | 78.6 |
| 2024 | 1257W / 1300L / 168D | 1127W / 1439L / 151D | 75.6 |
| 2023 | 1268W / 1344L / 199D | 1125W / 1488L / 179D | 76.5 |
| 2022 | 1472W / 1270L / 168D | 1340W / 1386L / 171D | 73.3 |
| 2021 | 844W / 657L / 93D | 778W / 722L / 77D | 73.4 |
| 2020 | 501W / 326L / 53D | 447W / 377L / 51D | 69.7 |
| 2019 | 460W / 345L / 18D | 405W / 397L / 21D | 61.7 |
| 2018 | 62W / 42L / 6D | 58W / 58L / 2D | 61.9 |
| 2017 | 75W / 68L / 3D | 76W / 60L / 3D | 48.2 |
Openings: Most Played
| Bullet Opening | Games | Wins | Losses | Draws | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Australian Defense | 954 | 460 | 438 | 56 | 48.2% |
| Sicilian Defense | 847 | 372 | 440 | 35 | 43.9% |
| Sicilian Defense: Najdorf Variation | 573 | 280 | 270 | 23 | 48.9% |
| London System: Poisoned Pawn Variation | 525 | 215 | 279 | 31 | 41.0% |
| Sicilian Defense: Closed | 502 | 208 | 270 | 24 | 41.4% |
| Amar Gambit | 492 | 236 | 240 | 16 | 48.0% |
| Amazon Attack | 466 | 207 | 235 | 24 | 44.4% |
| QGD: 3.Nc3 Bb4 | 459 | 243 | 193 | 23 | 52.9% |
| Slav Defense | 428 | 182 | 224 | 22 | 42.5% |
| King's Indian Defense: Averbakh Variation | 411 | 211 | 180 | 20 | 51.3% |
| Blitz Opening | Games | Wins | Losses | Draws | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sicilian Defense: Najdorf Variation | 658 | 298 | 329 | 31 | 45.3% |
| Sicilian Defense | 610 | 276 | 285 | 49 | 45.2% |
| Nimzo-Indian Defense | 507 | 248 | 227 | 32 | 48.9% |
| King's Indian Defense: Averbakh Variation | 398 | 181 | 195 | 22 | 45.5% |
| Slav Defense | 375 | 162 | 183 | 30 | 43.2% |
| Australian Defense | 360 | 193 | 149 | 18 | 53.6% |
| Sicilian Defense: Closed | 350 | 155 | 182 | 13 | 44.3% |
| QGD: 3.Nc3 Bb4 | 347 | 161 | 158 | 28 | 46.4% |
| London System: Poisoned Pawn Variation | 298 | 133 | 145 | 20 | 44.6% |
| Queen's Gambit Declined: Hastings Variation | 292 | 139 | 137 | 16 | 47.6% |
| Daily Opening | Games | Wins | Losses | Draws | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sicilian Defense | 58 | 37 | 17 | 4 | 63.8% |
| Sicilian Defense: Najdorf Variation | 33 | 21 | 11 | 1 | 63.6% |
| Bird Opening: Dutch Variation, Batavo Gambit | 30 | 21 | 8 | 1 | 70.0% |
| Australian Defense | 29 | 22 | 7 | 0 | 75.9% |
| QGA: 3.Nf3 Bg4 | 29 | 19 | 10 | 0 | 65.5% |
| Slav Defense: Bonet Gambit | 27 | 12 | 12 | 3 | 44.4% |
| London System: Poisoned Pawn Variation | 24 | 16 | 7 | 1 | 66.7% |
| Sicilian Defense: Closed | 23 | 12 | 9 | 2 | 52.2% |
| Amazon Attack | 23 | 11 | 12 | 0 | 47.8% |
| QGD: 2...Bf5 3.cxd5 | 16 | 13 | 3 | 0 | 81.2% |
| Rapid Opening | Games | Wins | Losses | Draws | Win Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sicilian Defense: Najdorf Variation | 27 | 17 | 6 | 4 | 63.0% |
| Sicilian Defense | 22 | 14 | 7 | 1 | 63.6% |
| QGD: 3.Nc3 Bb4 | 18 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 61.1% |
| QGD: 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e3 | 12 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 75.0% |
| QGD: Exchange, 5.Bg5 c6 6.Qc2 g6 | 12 | 6 | 4 | 2 | 50.0% |
| Nimzo-Indian Defense | 11 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 54.5% |
| Queen's Gambit Declined: Hastings Variation | 11 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 72.7% |
| London System: Poisoned Pawn Variation | 10 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 60.0% |
| Slav Defense | 9 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 77.8% |
| Slav Defense: Bonet Gambit | 8 | 2 | 6 | 0 | 25.0% |
🔥 Streaks
| Streak | Longest | Current |
|---|---|---|
| Winning | 19 | 0 |
| Losing | 28 | 1 |