Translating openings to chess logic

 I have a fairly good idea what my openings should look like. Not in terms of variations, but in a theoretical way.

I'm in the process of changing to other openings for quite a few years now. I tried the HAD, the 2.Bf4 London, the black Sniper, the white Sniper. the Dzindzi Indian, the Jobava London, the Classical Dutch, the Bogo Indian and maybe a few others. About most openings I'm rather enthusiast, yet I hadn't the idea that it represented the way how I think a game should be conducted. 

That is arrogant in more than one way. First of all, I don't know how a game should be conducted. Secondly, I mishandled the openings I tried often in a terrible way. So how can I possibly know?

Yet that is simple. I have a few ideas about how a game should be played, and I want to test these ideas in practice. I'm after the feedback my games can provide. So openings that give good results but no feedback, are useless, essentially. Since I want to learn to play chess. I might get a point or two because I'm standing on the shoulders of others, but if I don't know what I'm doing, I'm learning nothing.

Now I have found the base of tactical training, that training is just a matter of daily practice. Which is what I do every day. With the tactics taken care of, I'm ready to look at other areas of the game.

I suck at openings, the middlegame and endgames. I suck at tactics too, but that is just a matter of time now the right training method is found.

Feedback of my games showed me that my new openings choice isn't very productive yet. My current choice is:

• Colle Zukertort with white (Chessable, GM Simon Williams)
• The unexplored French against e4 (Chessable, IM Yuriy Krykun)
• Accelerated Queens Indian against d4, c4, Nf3 and g3 (Chessable, IM Yuriy Krykun)

My illness, the passing of my wife and the fire in my home all had their influence on forgetting the variants, so the poor results of my openings are explainable.

The first two openings are definite, the AQID is just highly probable,

IM Yuriy Krykun did an extraordinary job with the Unexplored French. Yesterday I watched a video of 47 minutes about plans and pawn structure in the French. He produced a gem with every breath literally (the breath, not the gem). I took notes, and after a lot of stopping the video and restarting again, I had about 100 brilliant ideas written down. Most of them are universal ideas, independent of the French. Or ideas which could be made universal, with a little effort.

His ideas give a good example how to conduct the ensuing middlegame and even endgame. I'm intending to write a post about it shortly. When I can convince myself that I shouldn't keep these ideas for myself.

The same is true for the Colle, although the ideas are less condensed here. If I can combine the ideas of Williams and Krykun and generalize them, I no longer need to worry about how to incorporate My System or GM Smirovs work in my play.

At first, the book about the AQID seemed to be a bit disappointing. Since it seemed to be more about variants than about plans. OTOH there are probably ideas enough when I view the whole series of videos and not just 15 minutes of one of them.

The good news is that there is a lot of resemblance between the AQID and the Colle. Williams focuses on the attack on the king while Krykun has a good eye for the ensuing endgame. So I hope I can combine both ideas and make use of them in both openings.

What is ensured though, is that I will get usable feedback from my games when I play these openings. I don't worry about endgames for now. I want that my games lead to a mate or a winning endgame. The fact that I probably will screw up that very endgame I consider to be a luxury problem. Which I will take care of in due time, when the problem arises.