We need more amateurs to post their annotated games.

You have strange ideas of what boring is and its the exchange variation.

so lets see the players that have trotted out this variation as black... Aronian, Anand,  Shirov, Gelfand, Grischuk yep all players know for passive play.... 
Oh and as white Kasparov, Shirov,  morozevich, Ivanchuk

White picked a sharp idea and misplayed things Suspect is 9. Qd1?

here is a boring game between two boring players

you need to play something more aggressive than Nc3. play a fast d4 is black is going to play such a passive move as d6. 

The rest is just black playing to lose no great excitement

Chess Titans can be a pretty big whelp even on level ten.  This is a fresh game against it with the white pieces where I played 1. c3

I should have crushed my opponent here:

I am talking about the opening. Boring does not equate with "bad" or "awful." 

You can take any opening and turn into a great game. 

The London System is also solid, but in no way is it exciting to play.

Why did you post the whole game as a puzzle? 

oops early morning post (2am) fixed the game to be a game not a puzzle.

Second my point is that the opening your referrring to is very exciting. its not even close to a yawner like the london but creates challenging strategical positions that have a lot of tactical things going on. One reason Players think X is boring is because when 2 very strong GMs play something you miss all the excitement because they 'avoid' any of the potential pitfalls. I could post 100's of quick games where players like marshall crushed people with it and marshall was not one to play solid, boring games. your assessment is based on lack of understanding and knowledge. I suggest you take a deeper look at the positions before making an assessment or at least define what you mean as boring and exiciting (I actually think several 'gambits' are boring because once black knows the key line things quickly get traded off and cruise to an endgame which is fun but more techical than tactical)

It's the general consensus that the four knights variation is boring. 

You can't argue using the fact that an opponent can mess up. That justifies every awful opening out there.

P.S. I know more than you think. Opening knowledge isn't going to win you games. Most players can determine the best moves just by feeling alone.

It's the general consensus that the four knights variation is boring. 

whose consensus? not saying your wrong but at least back it up with a few quotes other than your own.

 And I can certainly use that players messing up makes a game exciting. if the path is dangerous then its not so boring is it? It can be argude that the gruenfeld is boring because there is theory out to 30 moves and things can get 'boring' in many lines. 
you have yet to define what exciting is or boring is. is boring to you "I dont like it" or based on wider assessment of  factors. Since you  are saying 'general consensus" then  use good academic  evidence and quote people.

Some games like the slav or semi slav "look" boring on the surface but have many exciting middlegames once things start rollling. Many so called 'exciting' variations have really boring variations (and really crazy ones too) look at how kramnik played the petroff just recently! he was going for a win with a nice kingside atack and I am sure if it was a normal player his idea would have worked. 

most players think they know more than they really do. the players your talking about who can determine the best moves by "feel" is not you , me or 99% of the players in the world.  learning what the Best moves are in a given position is based on a lot of study of specific moves, knowledge of the plans, strutctures and calculation. 

...23 Qxe1 is mate

There are some "non-boring" variations, such as the Halloween:

1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nxe5!?

Nxf7 is said to be inferior compared to Bxf7+, but you're right. Maybe a ?! would have been better.

Bc5 is the main line of the Traxler, even though is not commonly played.

Kxf2 is an inferior line of the Traxler, compared with Kf1, but maybe I was too harsh with a ?!

And I'm not giving a ?! to the main line of a gambit! 

playing against another GM today, let's just say I am not happy the way I played it :(

interesting game. IMO you played the wrong simul strategy. To beat strong masters in a simul you want complex positions where they can miss someththing because they lack the time to calculate everything accurately. you were simplifying the position and hoping that would help. I think thats wrong. (especially bishop for knight which could have been an advantage in an endgame). As you simplify strong masters will play endgames almost with out thinking due to their vast experience. You they will take a small edge and draw out the game while they finish up other games your game will increase in difficulty. 

(pretty cool you get to play Ilya though!!)

well its not a simul, I play a 5 min game with him in chesscom , and well, he's a GM, he truly knows what he's doing, after I analyzed, his move made sense after 5 moves down the line, and he's not thinking that long at all. :(

looks like back to the books with me :)

Yes, but you never see that at the IM or GM level. Actually I have never seen it played OTB.

Yes, the Halloween is considered an unsound gambit, but one with great practical chances. Found an interesting game at chessgames.com, definitely not boring!

You really need to check out the chess scene. There is a good reason why GM's typically avoid the Four Knights Variation.