Openings vs. Tactics

   I looked to see if there was a thread I could place this question but I didn't see one that fit, so here it is. My question is two fold, first how much time should sub 1000 player spend on openings, second same thing for tactics. The reason I ask is that I feel that focusing completely on tactics, short changes me somehow, but at the same token, not focusing on tactics is also a handicap. And also what openings do you reccomend for white and black for sub 1000 if any? 

I would follow the 20-40-40 rule. Until someone reachs 2000 you should study 20% openings, 40% Middlegame (that includes tactics), and 40% Endgames.

I'm by no means a good player, your rating is higher than mine. But I know for sure that tactics is more important than openings for beginners. As long as you know opening principles, tyou don't need to learn opening theory that much. Tactics are really important though, I've become much better since learning how to do them and how to avoid them.

Thanks for the comments so far. And btw I've never heard of the 20-40-40 rule, I will definitely add it to my study plan.

I was mostly just an openings player when I was a beginner and it's certainly hurt my play up until this point. I'm not saying openings aren't important, but I definitely spent way too much effort on them. I'd spend more time not looking at the lines and variations of an opening, but what the middlegame plans are. tbh I don't think endgames were that important to my development because most games didn't last 20 moves for me but that's just my opinion. I'd spend the majority of your time on tactics tbh

Openings for your level

If you play d4, Colle System! Simple, solid, yet aggressive at the same time (If you know what you're doing). 

E4, Just stick with the Italian imo (but don't play d3 nc3 stuff and be super boring)

As black, against d4, the Slav defense is solid and easy to learn

You could pair that with Caro-Kann but I think French is the best opening against e4 for beginners. Most of the time you're going to play the advance variation, which is basically just equality for black on move 3

80-10-10 for me lol

Openings are pretty good for short-term improvement (if you want to improve RIGHT NOW then watch a video on an opening, learn the lines and you'll see some improvement right away. This can be helpful for people that are stagnating, but for becoming consistent at a certain rating range tactics are more important.

That mainly implies to people sub 2000 FIDE/USFC/whatever organization or website you have a rating with. After that, try the 40-20-40 rule, a rule that I just invented where you swap thre middlegame and opening

I am only rated around 1300, so take my advice with a grain of salt.

I think tactics are significantly more important than openings for sub 1800 players. Learning opening traps is a good idea, but it will only help you win a few quick games. Tactics, however, are the main reason why games are decided. 

I would say that you should study both openings and tactics, but study tactics more often.

Hope this helps! Good luck!

sub-1000 chess.com rating, I'd barely study openings if at all. I'd do a few chess puzzles (tactics) and devote my "opening study" time to learning and implementing chess opening principles. 

https://www.chess.com/blog/KeSetoKaiba/opening-principles-again 

That alone is enough opening knowledge for 1000-level I'd say. As for how much time to dedicate to what is a more complex question, but I don't like generic this percent to this and that percent to that type of answers. 

True, it might work for some, but how much time you spend on what depends on many things:

- how much you want to improve; chess is a board game and a hobby for most, but obviously a GM-in-training is going to invest more time to improvement than a recreational player (and that is completely okay).

-depends on your natural strengths too; for example, if endgames are very intuitive for you, then you might want to either:

a) work more on openings/middlegames to become better rounded or

b) put even more time into endgames because that is what you excel at and naturally seem strong in.

-Another consideration for how to delegate your study time is what learning style you are. Different things work for different people and similarly some learn faster than others. Visual learners might do better with analysis boards or playing a bot in an endgame drill, but "book smarts" people might like chess books and chess articles more. In that same way, some people learn best with chess videos and others prefer more interactive forms of learning like chess puzzles. 

I wouldn't limit yourself to one learning method, I'd do them all! Read chess books, watch chess videos, play lots of games and analyze them and so on. You can do more of the method you feel is better for you, but it takes experimenting to see what you like

If you do study openings deeper than opening principles (perhaps not necessary for 1000 chess.com level, but not necessarily a bad idea - just that the information learned might not be used as often at this level yet), then I'd only learn the first few moves for each side and learn the basic plans and ideas for each side. This an opening principles is more than enough

playing nxd4 is slightly inaccurate because black just takes the e4 pawn and then plays d5 to attack the bishop with tempo and defend the knight

not blundering pieces is what any sub-1800 should focus on the most

Yep still trying to do that...

i stopped doing that...just blunder queens now

I blunder pieces and pawns... Nothing more usually

Guinea was doing greaaaaaat at that with me 😆😆😆😆

That too hmm

So glad you resigned our game before I could blunder it 😆😆😆😆