My Best Ever Tournament (conclusions)

MY final score at Lausanne 1999 of +1=6-1, plus a full-point bye, was a Fide rating performance of 2353.
To what can my success be attributed?
1) The format, which I am fairly sure was two rounds a day for four days, with a single round on either the first or last day? Perhaps I was in better shape than most of my opponents to handle this.
2) A clear head. I took no computer or chess books with me to Lausanne, and so was unable to prepare for any opponent or work on my game.
3) Varying my openings. Every game saw me play an opening or variation that was either completely new or very new to my repertoire, so no opponent could successfully prepare for me.
4) Luck. I am not a great believer in luck in chess, at least not over the course of a whole tournament. But consider this: in round one a grandmaster failed to spot a win in a pawn-ending; in rounds two, three and nine, I was material down early on, but all three games were drawn; in round seven a much-higher-rated opponent found himself in an unfamiliar opening with the white pieces and then allowed himself to be bluffed by my tournament performance instead of rationally taking my relatively low rating into account.
5) Sensible living. I limited myself to four units of alcohol a day - two with lunch and two with dinner (I managed to keep to this rule for every day bar one). I did not tire myself out by going on overlong walks (there was no time to), and I had enough with me to read (chiefly one of German historian Hans Delbrück's books, I believe) to avoid getting bored.
I suspect my success may have been a combination of all these things.
So what of the future?
1) Tournaments with the same or a similar format as Lausanne 1999 are rare. But it may well be that, 21 years later, any advantage this format gave me would no longer apply.
2) Mikhail Botvinnik was a great believer in having a clear head. He would apparently stop studying, or at least dramatically cut back,  in the two weeks or so before a tournament. It is easy enough not to take chess material to a tournament, although I need my computer to update my blog, and anyway would be loathe not to look at a game before playing the next one. Back in 1999 it seems I and my opponents postmortemed after a lot, if not all, of the games. PMs are rarer these days, so perhaps annotating a game for my blog in 2020 will not be so very different from having a postmortem in 1999.
3) Magnus Carlsen plays lots of different variations - many of them not only not sharp, but regarded as innocuous (at least in anyone else's hands). But it is possible they are chosen with specific opponents in mind, which brings us back to an argument for preparation. I already change my openings fairly frequently - too frequently, many would say. Is it really realistic trying to introduce more change?
4) Can anything be done to improve one's luck? Perhaps I  should reread David LeMoir's How To Be Lucky In Chess.
5) Sensible living. A tall order, but I may try it ...