Thats not true, and at the top levels its a balance of memorization and intuition. Its just a game, if you are going into such depth about it you obviously are trying to resolve an internal conflict, that actually says a lot about how you actually feel about chess, you wouldnt get into an argument about gambling which you know is just outright unhealthy, for instance. Beginner players would have to spend alot of time and energy to remember every chess opening up to move 25, and once someone has done that its impressive to see how much super gms actually remember. That is alot of information to keep stored and to recall on demand. From what i gather most 2400s go into lines they dont know and theyve been studying chess since they were 8 or 10 years old. Its not exactly easy to be a super gm so i dont understand this complaint
Is chess the most deceiving game? Are you a chess addict? Why?
It sounds more like you are frustrated at repeated attempts to improve your rating and are giving up
This was also posted 1 hour ago on lichess, and it does sound a bit like suggestive rhetoric 
yes, yes. I play chess because it's a bad game but at least im better in chess than i am in the other things I do.
If all you see in chess is memorizing, well, I suppose you'd be better off not playing chess. You greatly exaggerate the importance of memorizing theory, much like Judd Mulvaney.
Thats not true, and at the top levels its a balance of memorization and intuition. Its just a game, if you are going into such depth about it you obviously are trying to resolve an internal conflict, that actually says a lot about how you actually feel about chess, you wouldnt get into an argument about gambling which you know is just outright unhealthy, for instance. Beginner players would have to spend alot of time and energy to remember every chess opening up to move 25, and once someone has done that its impressive to see how much super gms actually remember. That is alot of information to keep stored and to recall on demand. From what i gather most 2400s go into lines they dont know and theyve been studying chess since they were 8 or 10 years old. Its not exactly easy to be a super gm so i dont understand this complaint
It's kinda funny friend, because you are exactly confirming what I said, without realizing it. Thank you for it.
I agree a little bit, I actually think the top players only compete against each other and their ratings are maybe a little inflated. Its not memorization at the lower levels, and youll never even be 2400 so I dont know why you think its only memorization. When i play 960 i feel much less sure about what im doing, but at top level they play 960. And though i dont think magnus is the best at 960 (so is?) he still performs very well proving its not just memorization. At higher levels theyve played and studied so much that the openings are second nature. But below super gm 2400 there is a vast amount of theory they may never master, and much so below that like 1900. There is plenty of room for a lower player to improve. And to the other part everything is about dopamine we are creatures that do everything off of reward, without it you experience schizophrenia. So I dont believe you, i think you are ranting, and its not a open minded view. There is flexibility in chess. How is literally any other "sport" different than being based off of a reward system?
Chess adiction doesn't exist. That's pseudoscience propagated by people who don't know what addiction is. Addiction is not when you do something a lot or when you like doing it.
Honestly, all I see now is just memorizing. I'm so sad for all the people that spend thousand of hours to memorize something... what for? To WIN a game!! That's EVERYTHING BUT what sportsmanship and fairplay means.
You memorize lots of things in daily life. You memorize multiplication tables. You memorize random facts. You memorize your memories, to some extent.
Top players memorize a lot of theory, yes, but they also understand the game on a much higher level. You can complain about all the memorizing top level players do to win a game, but most of the time, you only get a slightly better position with that memorization. What then? There is still plenty of chess to be played. It is not all memorization, and even less so at amateur levels.
My OTB rating is expert. What I memorize are positional ideas and strategies, which helped me get where I am. If that is what you mean, then of course chess is all about memorization. In that case, though, it is no different from any other aspect of life. If you mean memorizing theory is what wins games at amateur level, you are completely wrong.
Chess adiction doesn't exist. That's pseudoscience propagated by people who don't know what addiction is. Addiction is not when you do something a lot or when you like doing it.
No friend, an addiction is when you do something because with the lack of it, you don't feel as good. Most of us amateurs play chess because, a part from liking it, the winning gets you a release of dopamine. Just like getting many likes on a post or a comment. It's exactly the same as when you drink wine\beer for someone who is used to do it, or smoking cannabis for someone who is used to do it, or coffee, and so on. Now tell me, have you ever stopped playing a chess session when you lose? If your last game is a lost one, you leave with a bad feeling and it will persist for "tot" minutes, depending on the character of the person. Most people will like playing the finishing game with a win. WHY???? Because it's an addiction, simple as that. Most people, especially because of the pandemy, joined chess to kill time. Now why you would ever want to kill with something that doesn't give you a "reward"? we're like dogs, we need cookies. Our cookie is beating someone, and please don't deny me that, you perfectly know it. This means most of us don't play chess because its chess, we play chess because it's just a device that can let us release some dopamine and feel "uplifted". Nothing more.
To answer NoNameOfNames, I'm sorry friend but you're very wrong. Doing something because it gives off a reward means is an animal behavious, exactly like dogs. We're not dogs. If you love someone, you love because you love, not because it gives a reward. If you enjoy playing music, you do it because you love it, not because it gives a reward. If we play chess, we should be playing it because we love\enjoy it, not because it gives a reward. This is the total proof that we don't play a "sport" or a game (Chess is not a sport") because we enjoy it. We play chess because it's simply a device to let us release dopamine\happiness with victory. This means that when you lose, you get exactly the opposite effect. Problem is , when chess you are always going toward a loss, no matter what, because there is no logic in it.
I enjoy playing it, but i've been analyzing the psychological and logic of it, and I can safely say, chess has no logic because the math behind it is trillionaire. It means our brain simply cannot understand it, unless we memorize what is written in books and from past games. That's it. There's no other logic in it as every move is dependant on the next move, which in turn is dependant on the next move, which is again dependant on the next move, and so on. This is why professionals play on another level. Because they simply have studies their whole life books and past game, and they made them "standards". But there is no standard in chess, at all. If you can't follow this, I'm sorry friends.
Anyway, enjoy the game.
And please all of you keep in mind my words are directed to ONLINE CHESS. Playing an a physical board is a total different experience, and in my honest opinion, the REAL and most beautiful experience of Chess.
Maybe too lazy to read it all, or maybe I totally hit the spot. I'm glad if someone can change my mind but I really guess not.
TLDR: If you're very good at chess, it simply means you played it a LOT. Nothing more than that.
I'm a person who thinks a lot, I love strategy games , I've always played them. But no, chess implies just a little bit of strategy, the rest is only memorization and getting used to "already seen patterns". Nothing more. I'm sorry if you guys feel attacked but hey, I'm a chess player too. I'm just trying to see it from an outside perspective.
There's no intelligence at all involved in chess. No IQ required. No "adaptation strategy" at all.
You either make a mistake or not but THIS is when the deceiving comes in:
excluding blunders here's how it goes:
Your bad\good move will only be so AFTER your opponent plays.
And when your opponent plays the move, it will either be a good or a bad one ONLY AFTER you played the next move.
That next move you play... is it a good or a bad one?? well guess what, only your opponent's next move will prove it a good or a bad move.
Then when your opponent plays again, HIS move will say if your move has been a good or bad move.
Can you see where I'm going?
It's a rabbit hole, and no wonders professional players have mental problems.
You want to be one of them? For a game? 
Totally agree with this . If you're good at chess, it's mainly because you played it a lot.and that's disappointing. Unfortunately that's true for a lot of things. I guess we just have to decide if we want to become better at chess or at something else I think I indeed shoul spend my time better :/
Ok last post addressing my opinions. An addiction is usually defined as a physical dependency, of course our society is pretty dumb and that doesn't mean much, when you're referring to the obvious loophole in that logic, gambling which is often referred to as an "addiction". I know alcoholics who SAY that addiction is a physical dependency, and to my knowledge alcoholism doesn't form a physical dependency. So in other words, addiction is just a synonym for dependency. EVERYONE HAS A DEPENDENCY, including love. Which is the greatest opiate of all time, it means acceptance, and we're social creatures that CRAVE acceptance. Thats that. Chess isnt all memorization, at lower levels players dont know shi, theyre having to think very hard to get into the higher ratings like 1500. In literally every single game im playing there is absolutely no memorization, the position is completely random to me. VERRRRRY
FEW players know enough to get into move 30 and be sure everytime that they are still within theory. Youre just wrong, its not black and white. There is some memorization, what you should have said was PATTERN RECOGNITION because thats what many of the tactics are. To that degree yes ALOT of chess is pattern recognition, and not much strategy but it depends on the skill level, the correct openings leads to tactics which eventually turns into "memorization". If thats what you meant that is more abstract. Thats just the nature of chess, If you dont like that you probably had preconceived notions about what the game was like before you learned things.
I absolutely, totally agree with your words. We're basically saying the same thing, just from a different point of view.
Were not saying the same thing though i never said chess was "all memorization", if its a language issue then ok. Its just not easy to state that chess is memorization, fischer said it when he was like 70 because the last time he was below 2000 was probably when he was 12-13 or something he had forgotten how good he actually gotten. For me im not memorizing shi, and if i get into late middle game its all strategy, because i dont have endgame knowledge burned into my memory. Even if its pattern recognition thats relevant to short exchanges but that means nothing in the long run unless i can win a minor or major piece and then proceed to trade down. Rn i think im going to beat a player 200 points higher than me in daily, it looks good but i could be missing a key factor and utterly lose. There you have it.
First of all please don't translate these words for a professional player who uses his whole life to understand and memorize the best tactics. Let's speak about amateurs, which are I guess 90% of the players in the world. Let's not speak about the 10% (more or less)
When you do it right, you do it wrong.
When you do a good move, it's mostly gonna bad move.
If you do a bad move, it can really be a winning move.
This said, I came to the conclusion that chess is one of the worst games ever created.
I mean ONLINE CHESS. If I imagine myself playig 200 years ago, it could really have been a great game.
I do have fun when playing with a physical board. But internet totally ruined it. People now just use engines to memorize everything, therefore if you mostly win it's ONLY because you memorized. And you call this a sport?
Sport means adaptation to the moment, it means having creativity, a sport means sweating when fighting either with an opponent, or with yourself (tennis or golf two great examples)
No you can't adapt when you do something "wrong" in the first moves, because you all see the "black\white" engine bar can immensely drop or raise with just a single move.
Honestly, all I see now is just memorizing. I'm so sad for all the people that spend thousand of hours to memorize something... what for? To WIN a game!! That's EVERYTHING BUT what sportsmanship and fairplay means.
Please don't misunderstand me, I love the way this game (NOT a sport) was created.
But chess nowadays has become one of the worst playable online games.
If you can do something to change my mind, I will gladly accept it but I'm not asking for it.
I just want to freely share my opinion. I'm not a stupid person, I don't need to tell you my background because it would just mean "pump up my ego". Just believe me, I'm not a fool.
I'm here just to tell you, stay very alert, because your need to win and pump up your endorphines (winning a game does the same effect of receiving many "likes" on one of your social posts, that's why we do it) can very possibly lead to mental problems in the long run. Please stay alert, this is a deceiving game in which whatever you do, you WILL lose and it will harm your brain unless you are a very special and enlightened person. But in that case, I think an enlightened person will not play chess.
Take care friends.