Evaluating the tournament

 The result of my games has been pretty poor with 3.5 out of 9. That is of course pretty disappointing. However it is the same result as previous year.

It is only disappointing because I had the wrong expectations.

What is more important, is that I have discovered a whole new area of research. I found the next step in the process. In March this year I discovered that system 1 cannot be educated directly in any way. It can only be educated indirectly, by educating system 2. I experimented with diverse ideas of chess logic, but none of the methods I used gained momentum. I tried the chess logic behind high rated mate in four problems, high rated mate in three problems, high rated mate in two problems, high rated tactical two movers and complex composed mate in two problems. The problem with these problems is that the frequency of occurrence in my own games of the logic that is discovered is way too low.

I reformulated the chess logic I need to discover. I found two areas of importance: exchanges and pawn moves that increase the activity of my pieces. Those moves have a high frequency of occurrence in any game. That put me on the track of CM Can Kabadaya, who wrote a few excellent books on this subject at Chessable.

So recently I started with studying these books thoroughly. This tournament proved that this is indeed the right way to go. During the hours in the train to and from the tournament, I had time aplenty to contemplate about this. I discovered that the study of exchanges and increasing piece activity by pawn moves needed to be more specific. The logic in the books is for good reasons very generalized. What I found is that I need a more specific approach that is more tailored to my own games.

This is what I am going to do. I'm going to use the books I own on the openings I play. These books contain a lot of analysis by titled players. I'm going to extrahere the logic of the exchanges and the pawn moves that increase piece activity. This logic is closely related to my own games, and because this logic is based on my own openings, I expect a high frequency of occurrence.

I found the method of how to educate system 1. Now I must find the right material to apply the method too. This is the requirement: chess logic with a high frequency of occurrence in my own games.