Mental stack reduction

Me: "I like exploring unusual opening ideas on my own, so that I have an advantage in offbeat familiarity and don't get outtheorised"

Also me: plays some weird Czech/Snake/Schmidt Benoni hybrid, calc a check against a bishop trade but miss a response, lose the bishop for a knight and then a whole knight immediately afterwards bc I suck at calculation and pattern recognition and my opening is counter-intuitive

"THIS IS TOO HARD, I ALWAYS HAVE TO THINK ABOUT EVERYTHING, NOTHING IS OBVIOUS, I'M FORCED TO EITHER BLUNDER OR GET A GOOD POSITION BUT ULTIMATELY LOSE ON TIME"

This is my first impression after returning to chess after a month-long break (I usually play a couple of rapid games every few days on another site), and I can get lost in analysing peculiar openings on my own (understanding over memorisation, so no engines), but I made this break precisely because I was getting tired of my own fanatism.

Still, I wanna be able to play casually, but with a mindset made up of shortcuts to evaluate the position without ruminating on move choices before the game ever really gets complicated. Something like the endgame mind maps GM Smirnov offers in his courses, only applying to all phases of the game as much as possible. You'd think that "develop minor pieces, castle, don't move the same piece twice unless there's a tactic, don't bring your queen out too early, connect the rooks" would be enough, but I need to know even more generally, like "only allow a pin if [this or that], otherwise prevent it at all costs", "never ever trade this non-Dragon bishop", "always block this way if the g-pawn is advancing towards your king" etc. I need this just for a select few openings as White and Black (two for each side at most), just some systems that do not invite direct King attacks at me by default. I can work my way up from there, but first I want to get to a point where the basics are very obvious to me, so that I don't screw up at the very start then wonder how I lost. Any recommendations?

Would it help if I specified the openings I've been playing the most, as well as why they attract me to play them and/or why I avoid certain sidelines? I'm gonna presume that the answer is yes.

As White, I prefer having as firm control over e4 and e5 as possible, because that helps me be aggressive towards Black's short-castled King more often than not. To that end, I play either the King's Indian Attack, the Nimzo-Larsen (1. Nf3 2. b3), the Santasiere's Folly, and lately also Trompowsky with the idea of transposing into a favourable Veresov or Stonewall Attack.

As Black I prefer having firm control over e5 at least, because that will conversely protect me from many kingside attack possibilities for White. I also don't mind playing queenless middlegames, even though not even they are unmessable by default. To that end, against 1. e4 I play the Lion, with the occasional Hyperaccelerated Dragon or a Sniper (3. d4 Bg7!?) to avoid the 3... cxd4 4. Qxd4 line; and against 1. d4 I play either the KID or 1... c5 (because I might want to dodge the Tromp lines I play as White), leading to a Czech/Closed Benoni or similar. Against everything else I default to a KID or even some Dutch setup,

So, my play mostly revolves around fianchetto setups, attacking directly and not getting attacked directly. I'm guessing there are pitfalls there, like the fact that you can get overrun (I don't even touch the Modern Defence anymore if it's not Gurgenidze) and the fact that the control over the mentioned key square is only guaranteed if your opponent chooses openings and lines with different aims. Dunno if any of this helps, but there, I said it.

P. S. If anyone's got any literature recommendations, I think it's highly preferable for it to be objective, in the sense that it abstains from explaining anything in terms of historical developments and controversies. For example, I've seen SO. MANY. BOOKS AND LECTURES where Fischer's 22. Nxd7 in the Candidates Final against Petrosian is glorified as the greatest plot twist in chess ever made, but if one is to be objective and up-to-date, the concept of light-square domination should be so casually obvious that sacrifices to obtain it come naturally as the result of one's relatively brief thought process. I don't really care if something was revolutionary back in the day, I'm interested in having said idea DIRECTLY at my disposal (instead of being delivered in a roundabout way that serves to praise the King of Sports Paranoia more than anything else), because IT IS OBJECTIVELY GOOD.

"Prefer controlling e4+e5 as white... to be aggressive towards the black king"

I don't know if you'd like it, but the Bird's opening (1.f4) controls e5 immediately. Often times a common plan is to play h3-g4 and fianchetto the light squared bishop. (Reversed Leningrad is one of those, and so is the classical, but without the fianchetto).

The Classical Bird is basically a classical Dutch in reverse, or maybe a Queens Indian in reverse (if you fianchetto the dark squared bishop). 

In the Reversed Leningrad, sometimes you play a game like a Kings Indian Attack a few tempos up, since you didn't need to move the knight around to push f4. But the King is less exposed than it seems.

I play the Birds often, by the way. It's not theory-heavy; more like you get better the more you play it. And I only play 1.f4 against stronger opponents.

"Like controlling e5 as black... to avoid white attacks. Don't mind trading queens"

Have you tried the Pirc/Modern? You need to know quite a bit of theory there, but theres a few alternatives. My favorite alt is the Gurgenidze Modern. It's also not theory-laden, but it still hasn't been my go-to defense when I want to win. I either play the Pirc or Alekhine for that.

Check post #3, you might spot the following bit:

"I'm guessing there are pitfalls there, like the fact that you can get overrun (I don't even touch the Modern Defence anymore if it's not Gurgenidze)..."

So yeah, I kinda like the Gurgenidze. I especially like the delayed variation: 1. e4 g6 2. d4 d6 3. Nc3 c6 4. f4 d5!?, when Black's effectively gained a tempo, because even though he pushed the d-pawn twice, his dark-squared Bishop often goes back to f8 anyway, so he saves two tempi by leaving it on its starting square. It's a nice opening, except I often fall prey to passivity, due to a White Knight lodging itself into g5... and I also don't know when and how to implement the f6-pawn break. It's certainly not what one would call an intuitive opening.

As for Bird's Opening, there are so many reversed Anti-Dutch variations to keep track of (check out the book "Dangerous Weapons: The Dutch"), so I avoid it. Usually I don't want to play the same opening from both sides, so because I can't stop 1. f4 as Black, I choose to put faith in these Anti-Dutch systems, and I play, say, From's Gambit; but then White often just transposes into the King's Gambit, and that's just another opening I can't be bothered to study at this point, as much as I love it on principle.

Still, I'd like some non-opening recommendations.

Uh oh not the site....

In fact, anti Dutch lines work for white due to the extra tempo. But otherwise I’m not sure what I can contribute. I always accept the froms gambit, though I don’t have the best results since nobody knows what to do as black after move 4.

Wait, if you're saying that you always accept From's Gambit (which is something White does) yet have suboptimal results, how is that due to Black not knowing what to do after move 4?