Just play a few games of chess and you'll realize it's nowhere close to being exhausted by opening theory. Not at your level. Not at super GM level. Not even in correspondence chess.
This actually should've been pretty obvious if you have even played one game, but I'll say it anyway, the middlegame and the endgame, and actually the game of chess itself is way much complicated than you describe it. There's still much left to enjoy about it. 
Counting cards is a beautiful strategy. I mean, it combines mathematical analysis and practical tactics so magnificently that it actually allows you to beat the house. What's wrong with it?
It seems to me that some of the "purity" of the game is lost when we play like this. The battle of intelligence is replaced by a battle of memorization. Certainly there is still intelligence involved - I'm not saying otherwise. It seems to me that memorizing all these openings and playing known patterns is like counting cards. It takes the soul out of the game.
I still wouldn't abandon regular chess. There's still a lot of fun to be had. And the less experienced the players are, the less opening memorisation matters. If a beginner plays a perfect opening and then blunders on move 21, the opening becomes irrelevant.
Nevertheless, I think you have a point. And this is why I like Chess960 — every game is fresh and new. It's a battle from move one, not from move 15.
I'm curious as to other's thoughts on this. I know Bobby Fisher had feelings about this topic which led him to create Chess960.
I like chess. In fact I love the game. I wonder how many actually "play" chess anymore though.
There are hundreds if not thousands of openings one can memorize, and there probably as many end game scenarios to memorize. White opens with opening#304, and black counters with mainline defense #72. The middle game ensues where positions are studied, which results in the end-game, where more memorization leads to two players playing a combination of other people's games in a hope to have played the better choices from their memorized repertoires.
It seems to me that some of the "purity" of the game is lost when we play like this. The battle of intelligence is replaced by a battle of memorization. Certainly there is still intelligence involved - I'm not saying otherwise. It seems to me that memorizing all these openings and playing known patterns is like counting cards. It takes the soul out of the game.
The idea of understanding concepts appeals to me. Knowing concepts like related squares and the rule of the square in king/pawn endgames work for me. They're concepts about the game - not memorized patterns repeated in rote.
Now to counter my own argument, I can see studying known winning games in an effort to win. Makes perfect sense from a competative point of view. If your goal is to win at all costs, then it make sense to do whatever it takes.
What are your thoughts on this?