If you go with a low-theory, "system" opening, I'd suggest the English. There is a lot of theory, of course, but you're not likely to run into anyone not a master who will be really versed in it. c4, Nc3, Nf3, g3, Bg2, Rb1, b4 and play on the Queenside: you will get a reasonable game. You can also look for chances to transpose into your existing prep by playing an early d4.

An example of one or two of your losses would help us better evaluate and assess what the actual problem may be.

I hate opening theory!!!

I've always had difficulty relating to chess players who hate opening theory. Many prefer the aid of a database for the opening.

To me, this is similar to a golfer who hates mastering drive shots from the T box and has his caddy do them for him.

Chess has a beginning, a middle and an end. Get used to it.

Or...would you like some cheese to go with your whine?

This is terribly wrong.You may love to play football but hate to play goalkeeper, you may love speed and cars but hate anything that has to do with engines.It's a hobby and we all have the right to hate or love. 

   In life, things are not white and black  and ,yes, you may love chess and hate opening.Fisher also hated opening ,and in an interview he said that "it's the less creative part of  chess", would you dare to tell him :

"...would you like some cheese to go with your whine?"

I'm sure not

You are rationalizing. I call this pretzel thinking.

You want to play something other than traditional chess...I'm happy for you.

And...putz...I never said any of the words you tried to put in my mouth. I never said anyone doesn't "have the right to hate or love". And, I never said anyone may not hate openings.

Your analogy to football where one loves to play but not as a goal keeper is poor. Chess is not a team sport where you can specialize. Chess is, in this regard, more akin to golf...a one-on-one sport...where, like it or not, the player has to do all the heavy lifting all by his self.

And why do you have to drag poor, old, dead Bobby Fischer into it? Are you suggesting that he needed assistance in openings? Too, you are inferring that I don't even think he had the right to his beliefs. Or, that I would be intimidated by him. Even that he might want to smack me in the face for what I said. Absolutely pathetic argument.

I stand by exactly what I said...no more and no less.

I don't play golf and have no idea what your comparison means.

If I have to do a comparison - I love ju-jitsu but hate learning kata (formal exercises). Kata is obligatory for black belt. So I will never make a black belt - that's the price I am ready to pay and my teacher is fine with that. I can still enjoy ju-jutsu for as long as I am able to practice it.

I have no smallest problem with chess game having beginning, middle and end.

Where did I whine? My question was "what will it mean in terms of future progress?" Can I get to 1800? 2000?

Some people here had very interesting ideas on how to improve my opening play with minimal memorization. What's your advice? To clutch my teeth and learn the bluddy theory???

Yes. No pain, no gain.

Following your logic I have no chance to improve my endgame play - simply because I enjoy learning endgames.

Is there any way to turn endgames into painful experience? Help!!!

An unabridged, exhaustive tome of my opening theory:

1. e4 2. Ke2

I'm not a very good player, but it seems to me that there is a distinction between memorizing endless move-by-move variations in the opening and understanding opening theory, which would be understanding basic themes and strengths and weaknesses of the major openings and not involve much memorization at all.

Following your  logic I have no chance to improve my endgame play - simply because I enjoy learning endgames.

Again, you twist what I say. Lots of people dislike, for example, studying end games (ask Reb...but he is an NM and very skilled at chess, better yet -- he has implied -- were he to study end games more)...just as they do openings.

And, I agree with what someone said...learning opening game principles is usually adequate for lower level play.

BUT...all I have said is that chess has three parts...beginning, middle and end. If we really want to be good, it would be best to become proficient in all three parts.

I think that's all I've really said. Except, also...what kind of cheese would you like with your whine?

oops! Duplicate.

It was a joke dude

I am pretty sure IM Josh Waitzkin didn't really start to learn opening theory, until about the time he won his first master. If you have sound priciples for why you make your moves, you are still going to be in a good position to win, especially against someone who memorized book openings and isn't familiar with all of the variations yet. I say, learn the endgame and any traps you want to avoid in the first 5 moves or so. If you do this and carefully study your opponents (potential)threat and make sure you carefully take advantage of your opportunities, you should still do really well for a while.

It was a joke dude.

Excuse me, Mr. Bongcloud, but it was not a joke. It was a sarcasm.

Shrug. But...not to worry. No skin off my buttock.

Apparently it was.

Not.

I agree , we have to be proficient with all parts of the game but what exactly "proficient" means?

   For Carlsen having exhaustingly analysed everything he plays,knowing every line and sub-line and always trying for an opening advantage(at least as white) is "proficient".

     For us an equal position with plenty of chances for both sides is all we need to enjoy chess and even improve.Because we don't have 8 hours (or more ) a day to study chess.We have 1 or 2(and not even every day) and there are a lot that have to be learned.

    So what do you do? You find a quick and easy solution for your openings and you focus on the most important parts of the game, the middle game and the  endgame."Quick and easy solution" doesn't mean "bad".An equal position as white and an equal/slightly worst as black(if white plays the best) is more than fine IF you understand it and you feel familiar with it.And there is a way to achieve that without memorising but you have to do clever choices.

  No matter how much you understand the 2 knight's defense and the Max Lange attack you can't play an opening like that without memorising lines.You can't hope that you will find everything on-board.You can't hope that basic opening principles and a good tactic "eye" will "save" you. So if you don't want to memorise lines you have limited options but you still have, enough very good options.I have seen players becoming NM  without ever memorising a line and without ever worrying if their opponent will be prepared for them.

One way to think about it is that 'theory' is really just the ideas in a position after the first few moves have defined the opening. At any given point either White or Black has the option to take the game into one line or another. Its possible to eliminate a lot of the lines you aren't interested in just by saying, for example, in the Semi-Slav as White 'I'm going to play the 5.e3 line, then I don't need to know the mass of theory in the Botvinnik or Anti- Moscow variations'. Unfortunately as Black, you don't know whether White will play 5.e3 or 5.Bg5 (or something else like Qb3) so you need to study the whole thing.

Usually it is Black who has to be ready for anything, say you play the Nimzo-Indian, on move 4 White has nine reasonable options and you have to at least be aware that Qb3 and Bg5 are possible, even if you mostly see Qc2, e3 and g3.

It doesn't matter too much which opening you play. A few exceptions can be some lines in the Sicilian or something like the Spanish Marshall. In the end, for most club players it's more economical to know the ideas. I also prefer a trial and error approach.

1) Play the game

2) Tro to reach your strategical objective. For example: ''I play the Sicilian with black and I have pressure on the half open c-file with an active game.'' Now if the game is even, I could not care less if it was theory or not.

3) You can now run into the problem of A) not reaching your objective or B) having a bad position for reaching your objective at all cost. Try to find out what you did and do it better next time.

4) A person who does this really knows an opening over time without knowing so much the theoretical lines.