I think whether or not you're right about memorizing openings as others dispute, I suspect you do ultimately memorize lots of patterns. Usually it's done throug

I think whether or not you're right about memorizing openings as others dispute, I suspect you do ultimately memorize lots of patterns. Usually it's done through sheer practice, but if you dig enough, someone has probably given a name to all sorts of situations and tactics faced. What I think you're touching on with your gripe is that there isn't as much room for flexibility in chess. At high levels, the first to screw up loses. At low levels, you just don't recognize each other's screw-ups and vulnerabilities. You recognize them probably from experience more than anything. That still qualifies as 'memorization' to me, but you just can't get that from a book, in the end. To me it makes chess appear stiff and uncreative. Now, grant: with competitive play, lots of mind games go this way. If you have time to reflect and have expert-level knowledge, there are probably a narrow range of correct plays. It's difficult to allow for intuition.