As another comment mentioned below, I love it when you talk meta-strategy. How do you think your opponents think about you? I know you're hesitant to publicize this, but you can believe people who follow you would love to hear the answer. How do others think about how you play (classical)? Are you finding it harder to surprise people because people know you’re trying to surprise them? Or maybe it's some other meta-dynamic. I’d bet videos you do on “meta” and game theory type topics would do well for your audience. Because you think and approach things so differently (and your listeners probably do too; that's why they're here), they’d be very interested in hearing it. At the very least, drop a poll on your Discord to validate the idea. Great stuff!
As someone who does regularly play your gambits OTB in slower time controls (usually 90 minutes each) I can say its easy to underestimate how much the time control affects your opponent's play. Often my opponents realise they are are in a sharp and dangerous position, but with 90 minutes they can very methodically work through the options and carefully check for the dangers. I love playing the Von Hennig in blitz games, but I've found it to be a VERY poor opening choice for me in slow games, as even 1500s can, with an hour to burn, find surprisingly robust defenses, and you are ultimately playing an opening that has to get a successful attack going or it's simply dead lost.
Maybe aggressive openings aren't your thing? I always tried to play gambits and attack but it turns out I have way more wins in something calm like a french exchange
@@user-rx1xt2nd5e Aggressive openings are DEFINITELY my thing, I mean I'm sat there in a classical tournament playing the Von Hennig for a reason, right? I'm simply saying that my experience was that gambits that are highly successful in Blitz do much, much worse than you would expect when your opponent has 90 minutes to burn on finding the best responses.
