The two highest rated players in the world (Carlsen and Aronian, neither of them participating in this world championship match) frequently just aim to get a playable position out of the opening and still succeed in outplaying very strong opposition in the late middlegame/endgame. This despite the fact that it would difficult to find two better examples of "human chess databases".

This happens in any field with significant theory. A chess grandmaster isn’t any more of a “living database” than a mathematician, for example, who spends about twenty years learning theory (from elementary school to Ph.D.) before working on original research. And in chess, just as in mathematics, learning theory is not as simple as memorization.

> Once chess becomes "who is the better database" it stops being intellectually or practically useful as far as I am concerned.

A player who knows some theory will always have an advantage over an amateur, but when the difference in players’ knowledge of theory is negligible, as it is in the top levels, it is strategy and tactics that win games.

I do understand your frustration, as an amateur chess player myself. But telling yourself that you would be a better player if you just spent some time memorizing opening lines is just a cop-out. That won’t make you a better player, it will just put you on equal ground with your opponents.

Edit: heh, coincidentally today’s game speaks for itself.