If you play a repertoire during a long time, you become a person of habit.
A lot of these habits have (has?) grown during a period with lesser knowledge of the game and have become counter productive. The advantage of a gambit repertoire is that you have to replace it some day by a more solid repertoire. At that moment you can get rid of those improductive habits and look with new eyes to the opening. That's the process I'm in now.
Last week I followed a lot of video lectures from Mark Diesen, Pete Tamburro etc.. That is an excellent way to play thru a lot of grandmaster games in a pretty short time. The information is easier passed on than by a book. Especially what is important and what not.
It is good to have some knowledge of the different styles of the respective grandmasters. I'm impressed by the style of Botvinnik which is consequent logical and good to follow. I'm impressed by the style of Kasparov who has very creative solutions for logical problems. I'm impressed by Capablanca who makes things look easy. I'm impressed by Karpov who plays quiet, solid and irresistable.
None of the grandmasters seem to try to steer the game into certain waters. No one tries to avoid complex situations, no one seems to steer to an early endgame except maybe Kramnik who likes to trade queens early. No one shows a biased preference of open or closed positions. So for now I leave the vague concept of steerability as a dead end.
It's great fun to study the mastergames and quite interesting.
6 hours ago