Is Chess anything more than memorization?

Um, are you on shrooms or something?

You have nothing to memorise. Remember when Lasker was waiting for a train an meanwhile he started a game vs a random player who checkmated him in 25 moves without moving any of his knights. Lasker congratulated him and ask why he had not moved the knights. -«That horse-shaped pieces? I don't even know how they move!!»

"... going from good at tactics to great at tactics ... doesn't translate into much greater strength. ... You need a relatively good memory to reach average strength. But a much better memory isn't going to make you a master. ... there's a powerful law of diminishing returns in chess calculation, ... Your rating may have been steadily rising when suddenly it stops. ... One explanation for the wall is that most players got to where they are by learning how to not lose. ... Mastering chess ... requires a new set of skills and traits. ... Many of these attributes are kinds of know-how, such as understanding when to change the pawn structure or what a positionally won game looks like and how to deal with it. Some are habits, like always looking for targets. Others are refined senses, like recognizing a critical middlegame moment or feeling when time is on your side and when it isn't. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093409/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review857.pdf

I'll agree with the "learning how not to lose" part.  I'm being matched against people now who are in the 700's and they rarely make the same mistakes the people in the 600's do, and it's much tougher for me, so as soon as I get into the 700's, I go back down to the 600's.  Which is depressing.  Why?  Because as soon as I learn how to deal with these people, I'll get matched against people with an 800 rating and I'll start losing all over again.

There's just too many pieces to deal with.

Play some daily.

That’s just not a scenario. Cutting out horrendous blunders alone (I haven’t looked at your games) would get you well over 1000. 800s don’t possess any special knowledge that 700s don’t have. 

Being creative, creating beautiful combination is like reinventing the wheel. If you check with Chessbase and ECC, almost all combination have been done.

And how am I supposed to do that?

My point was just that the same sort of skill set will work against 700/800/900s so just work on your accuracy...shouldn’t be a case of 800s being able to take you down any easier. 

Oh...I thought you were leaving...but you are staying.

"... Sure, fast games are fine for practicing openings (not the most important part of the game for most players) and possibly developing decent board vision and tactical 'shots', but the kind of thinking it takes to plan, evaluate, play long endgames, and find deep combinations is just not possible in quick chess. … for serious improvement ... consistently play many slow games to practice good thinking habits. ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2002)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627052239/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman16.pdf

You need to learn how to narrow your analysis by focusing on what's important.

The logic in chess is the same we use daily: We don't analyze each and every variable to the end to make a decision but keep in mind what are we trying to do or avoid, the same as their relative importance when choosing what to do next.

Say you're looking for a cab and no smartphone on you. You won't stop each and every cab in the street to gather prices, service quality, and so on. You'll probably take the very first one that stops next to you. Or you're in an office meeting and get a phone call telling your apartment is on fire. You will probably leave the meeting and head to your home as soon as possible.

The problem in chess is that is not that easy to "see" the opportunities and threats because some are simple and some are anything but simple. A few people are gifted in this regard, but the majority need to work their way through recognizing opportunities and threats on the board.

The good news for you is that it doesn't take much effort to recognize simple threats and opportunities. Just pay attention to unprotected or poorly defended pieces, your's and the rival's, and then go through an elementary book on tactics. It will make a lot of difference in your results.

Ok. So how will you store these ~10^50 positions in the computer and then lookup a position before the end of the universe ?

Remember when Alekhine played vs a hustler in a park and was mated after 25 moves. -"This is impossible, I can calculate ten moves in advance", said the world champion, -"How many are you able to?" -"Only one", said the hustler, -"but is always the best"

"... In many ways, [Batsford's new edition of Logical Chess: Move by Move, written in 1957 by Irving Chernev] would [be] a wonderful 'first' book (or first 'serious' book, after the ones which teach the rules and elementary mates, for example), and a nice gift for a young player just taking up chess. …" - IM John Watson (1999)

https://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/assorted-recent-books

Remember when Karpov lost to a Moscow taxi driver in 30 moves. "How did you do that?", asked the champion. "Easy, I was told the goal of the game was capture the tallest piece, I just do that"

That was Reti that said that.

I know, it's kinda like that hot girlfriend that you can't stand being around or talking to, but you just can't bring yourself to leave her, no matter how annoying she is.