Can you become a master without memorizing openings?

Another way of putting it would be, has anyone ever achieved greatness based on their intuition and experience alone? Can it be done, and can you become Elite at this game without a photographic memory? Quick personal note: I've been playing since I was 10, fell in love with the game from the very start. I think I'm a fairly decent player, but I pretty much stopped playing in my late twenties when I became familiar with the regimen of all the world's top players. I guess I realized that as much as I love the game, I would never excel at it and it would likely become a never-ending source of frustration( I'm also OCD and kind of a perfectionist )because I just didn't want to commit endless hours 2 memorizing openings defences etcetera. Bobby Fischer had nothing but regret at the end of his life because of how much it had revolved around chess.

Anyway, I'm just curious what people think? Wondering if I can be competitive just studying tactics and analyzing games? I took up the game avidly again just recently, although I've limited myself to puzzle-solving for now ( rated 2002-add another 150 owing to misclicks on my crappy Samsung tablet-and climbing precipitously now that I've stopped screwing around ... raised my rating 300 in the last 2 days after it had plateaued for a bit).

1. g6 does have some interesting systems that I sometimes use.

I'm a newbie and haven't figured out how to reply to individual posts yet, so I'm going to have to thank both of you, barondali and sir migraine, here. This is great information and exactly the sort of encouragement I was looking for. I know my opinion is probably controversial but I'm just not going to play the memorization game, I see it as having largely ruined chess. I'm going to look up Kahn, thanks again Dali. If either of you are still here, how many Grandmasters do you guys figure, have something akin to a photographic memory?

I pretty much always open with King's or Queens Pawn to control the center of the board, but I play almost exclusively against machines. Once in awhile I'll bring out a knight.

If you don't plan on learning any openings, try experimenting with developing your bishops and knights in different ways.  Like bishop fianchettos, moving your knight to the 2nd or 7th rank, or pinning knights (so moves like Bb5 after Nc6).  Simple attacks like early forks supported by bishops work well.

if you learn openings you learn openings.. if you learn endgame you learn chess

No.

I'm too far from that level to have a very educated opinion, but I'd imagine not

Yes.

It seems back then being a GM was easy.

I've heard of many players who became GMs back then in a few years.

Or, if you see a brilliant move that is better than the OK one, play that.

Well, the rating of one then. Not necessarily the title.

Migraine I should have stated things differently, not come off as impractical as I probably did. I will likely familiarize myself with openings now that I'm becoming more serious, I'm just not going to memorize all of them 30 moves at a time. I am not going ruin my enjoyment of the game by playing it rote. Bobby Fischer himself said that largely destroyed the beauty of the game, that's why he came up with Fischer Random-which remains an option if I can't be eminently successful at conventional chess without playing like a robot. I'm going to study openings from a tactical standpoint, but I am not going to commit every optimal move for every possible situation or variation, to memory. I think that might be what drove both Fischer and Paul Morphe out of their minds, but what do I know? Not openings!

I do try to develop my Knights and Bishops as early as I can, many might even argue too early in some cases. I'm in the habit of trying to pin pieces to the king and queen, almost as soon as they come out. I also try to get my knights to the center of the board where they are the most powerful, at least in the early game, as soon as possible.

Getting back to openings, it occurs to me that having played almost exclusively against machines, bots and programs with extensive opening books, on a relatively high level, for many years, that I probably already have some familiarity with openings I wasn't even aware of. Pattern recognition and such. Obviously that's not mastery by any stretch ... but it's not the way of a dilettante or novice, either.

Well, I'd say that knowing your openings very well naturally comes from lots of experience... 

They say d4-c4 is theoretical, they say the King's indian is theoretical - but all of that goes through the window if I just fianchetto my light squared bishop... lmao

What about photographic memory guys? I have a prodigious long-term Collective memory, but my flash memory is not the least bit formidable. I really struggle with games like concentration, but maybe that's because I've never really tried to develop it mentally. Playing without looking at the board seems like an esoteric concept to me. Can one actually learn to play mental chess, or is that a gift you have to pretty much be born with or develop very early on?

Oh, yeah?!