Hardest move to make? After openings?

This post is with regard to my slow games. In context, I'm just noticing a pattern with some games as I'm climbing up the elo ratings with slower games. I think I haven't yet reached my real elo, since I've never seen how well I do with the knowledge I got and my great calculation skills. I'm very sure I'll end up really messing up once I hit a certain elo. But I'm hanging around the 1000s right now.

I seem to do very well in middle games and end games. But my issue arises on the game just after a simple part of the opening. I do get the idea behind the simple parts of opening, and defending the center properly, then I get overwhelmed with how many squares I can move after the beginning, get into a slightly weak position, get punished for it over several moves, but it's more obvious to me how to best save my position when I get into middle game with fewer possible moves. I don't have highly complex openings memorized, except for the simple part of many openings and continuations, so if I do go into Sicilian Najdorf or Sicilian Dragon or some weird thing like that, then it is completely by coincidence. I may get into just a simple Sicilian and that's it! My middle game is so strong that it doesn't seem to be an issue (though, I am not sure at which elo I would get punished for it). I end up chasing after positional theories, such as trying to create space between the pawns and the pieces for the opponent, and closing space on my side up in that respect.

One scenario where I made inaccuracies after simple openings: For a long while, I didn't even know how to punish the wayward queen attack, until I learned developing the knight, possibly gaining a fork with free material was the best thing, I think I heard by Gotham Chess. I used to simply prepare for the stereotypical bishop attack on the F pawn by the passive push of the D6 to protect my center E pawn before kicking the queen with B6. I never see my idea floated around, so I probably have a weak move there. My idea with pawns was basically to leave those major pieces hang around the center and easily attack them later, but I didn't know best moves.

Another scenario where I made inaccuracies after simple openings: That might mean giving an unnecessary check with the bishop, so that he moves his pawn (not going to go down the Ruy Lopez route, with the knight push, unless perhaps to force the knight into a less active square). I do hate giving away my bishops for a knight in slow paced games unless I have to, because bishops are stronger, according to a ton of GM's. So I avoid Ruy Lopez or any similar idea structure.

Another scenario: I try not to put pieces in front of my queen to save my D pawn if necessary, making me dislike a lot of bishop and knight moves on d2, which I do know are popular, but in often complex lines that I hate to calculate or some openings.

Another scenario: I get too comfortable with pushing the knight on F3/F6 with a queen's pawn opening, and considering F pawn lines will be a lot less preferred (unless it is F4 or F5 as those seem to be a lot more favored pawn pushes for good counter play), unless I see no way for the king's side to be attacked, or unless I close my structure up with g3 and an e pawn back (that often happens as I push D4 or D5, with the E pawn back, or have already made up my mind to fianchetto early on either or both sides on quick games), already often having a strong queen's side to safely allow a king's side castle. I think I heard opening the f pawn to give an escape square for back rank checkmate is best, but I see g3 and h3 as much better because the king is further away from being attacked, and it depends on the bishops on the board, too. It makes me weak, like many people, to the unusual Dutch or Bird's Opening until I do more studying on that.

Another scenario: I remember a game where I didn't move the c pawn first (knight on the 6th or 3rd rank blocked my pawn in, and you know the c pawn is critical to move for both white and black) in the accelerated london system (even though I'm a stronger london player). I made the knight move, holding too strong to the idea of moving pieces being better than advancing pawns. Advancing pawns is supposed to be a little weaker for positioning because it does create that pawn space I talked about, and also because it is more of a permanent decision, rather than to move the knight to another square. Had a hard time recovering, and the opponent made inaccuracies that led me to beat him. Still was someone in the higher 3 digits of elo. Not moving the c pawn didn't give the d pawn a defender, and made my position really force me to think hard.

Why does the part past the simple part of the opening have to be so difficult? Is it the same for many people? Is middle and end game supposed to be simpler than the opening game?

Nobody is going to read that man. In-depth books have less words than that. What's your question?

Simply put, why are moves after simple openings the times I make the most errors? Is that something a lot of people struggle with more than middle and end games since there are a lot more possibilities unless you memorize very concrete moves in opening theory?

Besides all that, I thought this is a CHESS website. Often, people in chess watch these GM's that often make 10 minute or longer YouTube videos of games and in-depth analyses, and many people, like myself, take the time to watch them talk about strategy. Lots of people play 10 minute long games here, and I have a post of 2 min to read. I thought chess was about in-depth strategic thinking and encouraging long-winded discussion to figure out best strategy. Correct me if I'm wrong, though.

#1

"my great calculation skills" ++ A rating around the 1000s is no sign of great calculation skills.
The best you can do is some mental discipline of blunder checking.

"I seem to do very well in middle games and end games." ++ Is that so?

"I get overwhelmed with how many squares I can move after the beginning"
++ Simple rule: improve your worst piece.

"get into a slightly weak position" ++ That is inconsequential.

"get punished for it over several moves" ++ You get punished for making an error

"I don't have highly complex openings memorized" ++ You do not need to

"Sicilian Najdorf or Sicilian Dragon" ++ Two highly complex openings

"a simple Sicilian" ++ There is no simple Sicilian

"My middle game is so strong" ++ Think again

"I end up chasing after positional theories" ++ Simple theory: hang no pieces, hang no pawns

"space between the pawns and the pieces for the opponent" ++ Makes no sense

"closing space on my side" ++ Makes no sense

"know how to punish the wayward queen attack"
++ You do not need to know, you can find out over the board by thinking logically

"I didn't know best moves."
++ You do not need to know, you can find good moves by thinking logically

"giving an unnecessary check with the bishop" ++ Every move should have a purpose

"hate giving away my bishops for a knight" ++ Yes, a bishop is worth more than a knight

"So I avoid Ruy Lopez or any similar idea structure." ++ Ruy Lopez is a good opening. 

"making me dislike a lot of bishop and knight moves on d2"
++ Nd2 and Bd2 sometimes make sense. It depends on the position.

"complex lines that I hate to calculate" ++ Calculation is essential

"opening the f pawn to give an escape square for back rank checkmate is best" ++ No

"g3 and h3 as much better because the king is further away from being attacked"
++ g3 and h3 are weakening too

"I'm a stronger london player" ++ Probably not

"moving pieces being better than advancing pawns" ++ Pawn moves are no developing moves

"Advancing pawns is supposed to be a little weaker" ++ Pawns are strongest abreast: d4 - e4

"it is more of a permanent decision" ++ Pawns cannot go back

"move the knight to another square" ++ Move only to a better square

"Why does the part past the simple part of the opening have to be so difficult?"
++ You have to think.

"Is it the same for many people?"
++ Yes, the middle game is most complex. Chess has most positions with 26 men.

"Is middle and end game supposed to be simpler than the opening game?"
++ Chess becomes more complex going from 32 to 26 men and then becomes less complex. However, even grandmasters often fail in simple endgames.

Absolutely right. Chess is a thinking game. But your over complicating things.

As I said before, my rating is in the 1000s more as a provisional rating. I believe it is higher than that. I had no losses so far. As for when I talk about spacing, I'm referring to the space between pawns and pieces. I'm aware of the rules saying that having more of that space is bad, especially since I cannot move pawns backwards to defend. Some of the quotes you refer to with me discussing my skill with over-confidence is in context to me playing 1000s over a provisional rating so far. Also in context is the fact that I'm surprised with myself in comparison doing this well after a 400 rapid rating despite reaching 1100 very easily, without trying hard to go higher, many years ago on an account I haven't been able to touch for whatever technical issues. Not only that, but it's easier to find blunders from much lower rated players as you climb the elo, so... I don't speak in over-confidence when comparing what I compare.

So the middle game just after the opening is supposed to be the most complex, you're saying?

I don't know if I over-complicate thinking about a game that has engines that supersede human thought.

#8
"space between pawns and pieces"
++ That is not relevant at all. Pawn structures are important. Placement of pieces relative to the pawn structures is important too.

"the middle game just after the opening is supposed to be the most complex"
++ Yes, 26 men is most complex.

I do remember a few games where my pawns over-extended forward on the board, being harder to defend. You wouldn't say the space between pawns and pieces matters?

So I guess I'm not just imagining things. This makes it very crucial for me to study my concrete openings so that I may get a good beginning middle game, instead of trying to rely on my own middle game calculations, I'm guessing.

So 26 men are more complex than the 32 we start with? I do have to ask because I play a lot of closed games involving a lot of pieces staying longer, and I find it simpler. What makes it more difficult in getting rid of 3 pieces from each side?

I also do puzzles. I find they help. The super hard ones that I do a lot more often border on very fantastical, impractical ideas that just don't come up in a game. Everything is set up very particularly to make you just lose your mind. I found one that was solved by Tal that involved 4 knights from the opponent's side. I have the link if you're interested in it. But I just don't find 2 knight underpromotions to be done in many games. I also found a game where this king was forced to do an unnatural waiting move to avoid being attacked by a bishop to lose his pawn. It looked to be a 3000+ elo puzzle. It was, again, a scenario I don't believe I'll find in a real game, as many of these very high level puzzles involve. The easy ones aren't worth my time. The somewhat hard ones are the ones I find to help the most, but I have to ask myself sometimes if they are actually done in real games because of how they set themselves up, especially the 3000+ elo puzzles.