Another one of these?
My thoughts:
Foremost, chess involves ridiculous preparation for openings, and this takes away from it as a game that involves pure decision making. Most players on this site will play book for the first five or six moves, and then the play veers into a line that is preposterous by the master standard of play. So, the openings are a farce.
At the near-pro and pro level openings are a big part, but for us they're not... although you say foremost, notice you end with "so the openings are a farce" I think instead you "foremost" mean you don't enjoy playing chess. (which becomes more evident as your post goes on).
The game is not all that fun. It is essentially a source of tripping if you will. All this while, we are congratulating ourselves over petty happenstances that mean nothing, neither intrinsically nor practically.
Good chess players are acutely aware of their shortcomings. For example Kasparov: "I can hardly imagine a game of chess where there were no mistakes"
I think only amateurs and non-chess players imagine chess as a game of players who are brilliant and pat themselves on the back. This is one of those perceptions that mystifies me when I see it coming from a chess.com user.
But as you say (highlighted in red) you don't enjoy chess.
I find positional play exciting and enjoyable. I dislike tactics. I like endgames.
I have to ask myself what makes a strong player? What makes the right to feel good that you can trounce someone? It sure isn't what I thought it was. The best players have ingrained thousands of inane patterns into their memories, and the best players are probably just gifted in this respect (memorizing patterns).
This is true. And I'd also call the thousands of memorized patterns inane. But a hobby is a hobby, if you enjoy it you'll continue to do it. You can apply the inane aspect to more than just chess, and more than only hobbies. In the end you have to do what you enjoy.
If all you know is openings and tactics it would be pretty boring (at least to me).
But really it doesn't take any kind of deep understanding before you can start enjoying chess. It is creative, imaginative, and involves a lot of problem solving... but for people who don't enjoy chess to begin with... what a dreadfully dull game. I think it's just that chess isn't for you. There're tons of different hobbies out there, find one you like.
Well, I thought I'd just summarize my findings as it relates to the psychology of chess and maybe rant a little. Foremost, chess involves ridiculous preparation for openings, and this takes away from it as a game that involves pure decision making. Most players on this site will play book for the first five or six moves, and then the play veers into a line that is preposterous by the master standard of play. So, the openings are a farce, and even if the importance is mitigated at chess.com, if ever a person wanted to take his game up a level, he'd have to memorize tedious variations to compete in the battle of opening preparation. The ruy lopez and kings indian are two popular openings that can go in the dozens of book moves, to be sure.
The game is not all that fun. It is essentially a source of tripping if you will. All this while, we are congratulating ourselves over petty happenstances that mean nothing, neither intrinsically nor practically.
I think chess best illustrates this idea of working memory in the tactical component, where I can't anticipate more than 2 full moves in advance. Besides, it is incredibly dull to study positional play, which involves even more long term thinking. Even still, I despise endgames and try to avoid them because they are exceedingly technical and mundane. I have to ask myself what makes a strong player? What makes the right to feel good that you can trounce someone? It sure isn't what I thought it was. The best players have ingrained thousands of inane patterns into their memories, and the best players are probably just gifted in this respect (memorizing patterns). To some extent, you can assert your personality, and I think that's about the only redeeming quality in chess. It is not art or talent, but it is crude linear processing, coupled with the task of problem solving in a lesser degree.
I think chess is the best game/proclivity, and I think it is a disappointing game at that. It is a game that lures people with competitive ideations, but it is a rather myopic competition if you think about it.