Proof

[disclaimer: boring stuff ahead] 

When I start a post, often I'm surprised where it is heading. I just follow my logical reasoning as much as possible. The effect of this is that I'm always right. Since when I'm not right, I rigorously change my opinion. That makes life easy, chesswise. Although I apply this principle to every aspect in life.

This approach has a few consequences though. It comes with obligations. The price of always being right is to act accordingly. If I conclude that the HAD is not in line with my newly acquired insights, I must look for another opening that is in line with these insights. You can't be always right AND lazy.

My approach is always rather naive. It looks a bit like my lower rated opponents when I used to play the Kings Gambit. When I played 2.f4, you saw them thinking: "he offers a free pawn AND he is higher rated, so I better not take it". Usually after half an hour or so you saw them thinking: "hey, a free pawn on f4, let me take it!". I produced a surprising lot of chess wisdom in the early years of my chess blogging, say from 2005 to 2008. And after every spiral I use to come to the same conclusions and think that I encounter it for the first time.

Yet after endless spiralling, the wheat tended to become separated from the chaff. And slowly every conclusion that is reconfirmed over and over again is included in a total grand framework. For 20 years or so I have been reluctant to draw definite conclusions. Since time and again, matters turned out to be different than anticipated. Maybe you have noticed that I'm inclined to shake off that cautious approach lately. The reason for that is that some logic conclusions simple have become inevitable.

There is no objective proof though. Mr. Elo will be the final judge. The reason that I'm no longer bothered by the lack of objective evidence, is that I have gathered enough subjective evidence. As long as I can sufficiently explain why my rating isn't going up yet, I'm not worried.

There are quite a few issues that must be addressed. If you do 90 things well and 10 things wrong, you usually still lose the game from higher rated opponents. Every aspect must have a sufficient level. If you have a series of sublevel issues, like me, you still can't win games from higher level opposition. I stopped spilling points against lower rated players though

But since half a year, I get feedback from my games. Since I have a plan from the onset of the game. So it is simply a matter of time before objective proof will start to materialize. It must be so. When feedback causes me to follow the right plans and teaches me to execute the right plans well.