Chess is NOT a thinking game for most players

Even Bobby Fischer got frustrated with how much opening theory chess involved (ie fischer random).

Chess is supposed to be a thinking game. I have played it for years and it is now my belief that, for the vast majority of players, it is a trivia game, which I abhor. Only after you are a master at the trivia game does a seperate (worthwhile) game emerge. 

I've been disenchanted with chess before, but I always thought it was because I couldn't be smart enough to play well. Now I understand it has nothing to do with my level of intelligence, just my lack of desire to memorize openings. Yes, I suck and blunder, but it's much harder to play a lost game to a win than a won/drawed opening game to a loss.

 
If all I want are games that involve no skill, no luck, and I can outthink my opponent, then there are other games that don't have the inherent flaw of chess that makes it so poor these days. Hive, for example.

Here are my two most recent games. I won one and lost one. Neither was any fun to play. 
 

chess is all about the end game bro.

Many people seem to be confused about this. I won't dare to say Fischer was wrong, althought I think many of his colleagues have demonstrated there was still plenty of room for creativity. But how all that opening theory affect the way us amateurs play the game?

Tricky openings are very difficult to counter by only knowing the first 2-4 moves. Even if successful in playing well, the time sink puts you at a hefty disadvantage. I completely disagree with your assessment of not affecting the outcome of games unless you're rated 2400+.

There are a lot of players that think memorizing openings will help them, but those players don't get to higher ratings.  I have never made any attempt to memorize openings, and I consistently perform well against 1700-1800 rated opponents (USCF ratings).  For non-expert players, the only thing opening theory is really good for is to suggest good strategies / ways to execute those strategies.  As to the games you provided, both show that you have trouble developing and playing defense, and in neither game did you have a bad position before leaving opening lines.

Thank you so much for going through my games. The 2nd game I posted, I was actually playing as white, but I appreciate the input regardless. Your commentary on the first game makes me feel so much better in a way. I felt I had lost the game in the opening (as I usually feel, hence this post). I feel I lose to dubious bishop sacrifices often.

The first game made me feel like I was trying to save a lost game as soon as my opponent sacrificed his bishop. I actually considered resigning immediately. Your views on the position have helped dramatically. 

Glad I could be helpful.  Sorry for commenting on the wrong player in the second game (lol), although there's not much to say for white there, really.  6.d4 was exactly the right way to punish black, tearing things open before he's ready to castle.  I would say 10.Nxe7 was definitely better than 10.Nxf6, but that's obvious, and you got the queen in the end...

Openings are big becuase of control of the center board. That sometimes makes it feel like it is all about memorizing the openings. The truth is chess is about check mate no matter how you acheive it, and protecting yuor king at all costs. If you protect your king at all cost and focus on defense then when some one who just memorizes openings gets a tough mid game they mess up adn you reap the rewards.  

Chess is a thinking game. Because, if you think well, opening theory is not important at your level. You might say "well then my opponent will know the opening traps and I don't." Well yes but you can THINK (think - chess is a thinking game) and blunder in the opening. And if make an inaccuracy in the opening it didn't matter at your level.

 I donot agree with you Sir....Middle game as well as opening too are equally important....

The endgames is very important... Both games should have continued w/ two Rs v Q...

Opening theory is a part of modern chess. That's what makes chess special from Go, Xiangqi and other mental games.

My word probably means nothing(im still a super patzer) but... maybe the problem is because you are misunderstanding the point of it?

in a sense, these super grandmasters with a lot of positional AND tactical mastery arent memorizing these starting choices(the opening) like a empty sequence of moves, but doing fine measuring of what ideas are stronger or weaker in side lines.

because the main lines until the 10th turn(random number here), they could probably find the answers through sheer intuition if needed(see carlsen) from the large experience and prior analyses of their own past games.

these monsters can and do deviate from opening theory for their profit, because they live from studying and understanding these in a way that is alien for most of us, in a more organic way.

sorry for my patzer talk.

TL: Its all about ideas and plans aka positional skills, learn them and you will endure any opening they throw at you, traps are other story(tactics,tactics and tactics... will solve that for you).

I'm an 1850 USCF player and I hardly know any opening theory. I know the first couple of moves in a couple of lines that lead to unbalances positions, but that's pretty much it. If I ever get to 2100 (unlikely) I might start looking more at concrete variations.

But in any case, and regardless of rating, there is still plenty of room to venture into unexplored territory from an early stage.

The one and only level thing on you is your EEG curve, sir.

To the O.P.:

Both games show tactical blindness (e.g. 9...c6 is a very bad move because it leaves a juicy queen en prise- a lot of such blind spots in a few lines of analysis...), and certainly enough not inadequate opening knowledge.