Two games, both a KIA against the French, with me being White against the same opponent both times... and this happens:

Why Qe2? In that position, I play e5 followed by Re1... typically saving a tempo over your game.

Qe2 is only required after Black plays Qc7.

The position you posted is not quite the same, though. I played e4 before Nbd2, and while it was admittedly kinda bluffy (due to the fact that Black's e-pawn is on e6 rather than e5, so Black wins a pawn by taking on e4, but I was planning to go Ng5 next and cause some gambit confusion with superior development), I intended to develop my Bishop to f4 and only play Nbd2 afterwards, so in my mind, it could've actually saved me a tempo. Too bad I didn't anticipate Black playing h6, which meant my Bishop would be kicked away with g5 even though I played h4, so I had to switch it up and play for the opening of the h-file (Bh3 doesn't only attack e6, it also vacates g2 for the King, so the Rook could access h1 more quickly), in case Black wanted to actually play g5.

So, that's why I played e4 first, instead of Nbd2. But why did I play Qe2 next? It's simple, it protects the e4-pawn, prevents a Queen trade upon an exchange on e4, and in case Black decides to play e5, he loses a pawn after exd5.

Of course, now I understand a few additional things:

1) g5 by Black would've been unlikely anyway, since he'd be exposing his King long-term; not to mention that h5 was available to White, since Bg4 was impossible;

2) e5 by Black wasn't that scary, since White would get a reverse KID up at least a tempo and a half... but I still found the idea unpleasant;

3) 6. e4 was just a bad move, and my attempts to play without knowing solid theory get the better of me, even in a system that can almost be played on autopilot.

All of this is horrible, and I've spent too much time learning my lessons, so it's not even worth it anymore. I don't see things for what they are, I miss basic tactics because I'm too retarded to be able to think more than one move ahead in most of my rapid games (and I don't intend to switch up on the time format), I have very limited visualisation... and most of all, the only way for me to improve is to get obsessed with my mistakes, and I've chosen to be mentally healthy. There's no balance that I can see coming out of this.

You are giving up too soon. Do you play chess because it is a game and you want to have fun or because it is a chore? It took me a lot of games to realize where I went wrong, and even now I am still learning. It took Edison 1000 tries to get the lightbulb to work, and Nakamura is a great example of how players improved over time. Keep trying, and play something out of your repertoire or a variant.

And if you have a negative outlook on the game and yourself, then you have already lost to your opponent.

"I am a pathethic, miserable excuse for a chess player"

Big deal! We all are

.

look over some of your favorite wins!  enjoy the game. practice and take your time.

' I'm a horrible player who's never going to get better." - OP

Ain't it Grand ! Self realization is a powerful tool towards enlightenment. Perhaps now the game can be fully embraced for what it is. 

i feel in good company now. thx Agent 93  .

ummm... who else realized it wasn't his game with the names?

He wasn’t claiming it was played on chess.com 

Look at the game header. 

Where?

I have had my blunders and screw ups in chess many times since I have known the game. If anyone here thinks that they are bad, just look at my history here. I have more minus signs than a school student's math book. That's how good I am at chess. About 30% of the games I play I come out the winner. Most of the time I will get my butt kicked big time.