You need to work on your openings, when you get losing positions out of your openings 
- that means analyzing the game with a stronger player, he tells you you're losing before (or when) the opening is over.
And after tactics, I would suggest analyzing your own games as the very best way to improve.
hmm, if it helps, I dont really know openings yet beyond the basics. I know the first so many moves of the openings I play, although even here, less so with certain boring openings that are all similar to each other and as such hard to learn *cough* d4 *cough*. If I reach a point where I feel I need to know a move to make, or to not make, then I'll definitely try to remember it, but chances are if I try to learn all about an opening i'll just forget it all, and it will be a waste of time anyway. (actually for all phases of the game I will look up a move I was unsure of, after the game). Maybe after I've done all that, I'll start to look at book-learning some openings. At the moment most of my opening 'learning' has been in response to my opponent's moves, rather than learning an entire opening in advance. I should say though, that I have looked through several opening lines in the openings I play, just so I've seen them before, essentially. Also I've looked at introductions, to pick up general ideas about openings, like say, controlling d4/e5 in the french, tending to avoid exchanging your lopez bishop in the spanish, how not to die quickly in the giuoco piano. I just couldnt write down what i've learnt, as I know hardly any 'lines'.
At the moment when i'm learning about openings, it tends to be always with chess in mind (and when my chess improves, so do my openings as a result), whereas i'm sure if i started to learn some opening like the french or the sicilian or the caro kann or the pirc, then I would find that I would make weak moves in my games because i'd be trying to play an opening all the time rather than chess. Hard to explain, but if you learn unnatural moves for openings, and someone does something different, then it's hard to know sometimes if you should continue to make those moves, or revert to natural moves.
Still, I feel the vast majority of my games are won or lost in the middle, and I still feel almost all of my learning is in this part of the game, trying to get as much as possible from a position, and looking for ideas, and also potential tactics. As this part of my game improves I feel it will only highlight my lack of endgame ability, so then i'll have to start practising those.
Phew, long post, anyway, the gist of it is, dont be afraid to learn some stuff about the more natural classical openings, and ideas in the openings, as you may find it adds another dimension to your game as a whole, and that the learning in different phases of the game starts helping/complimenting each other, but I wouldnt go nuts book-learning for aaaages, except if you get destroyed, or consistently bad positions out of an opening, then learn enough to get you past this.
You'll probably never master an opening. Most games I play vary from book early and the assessment is almost always unclear. Once in awhile someone will blunder, often me, but most times yu'll need to be able to rely on opening principals and tactics. I'd undertake endgame and middlegame study before becoming too caught up in openings.
It's important to focus on all parts of your game, if your making mistakes in the opening study openings
First, Josh, you are one of those players whose rating does NOT project the strength of your play; you are a strong player. I will be challenging you after this tournament is over.
Because you read the forums and stuff here on Chess.com, you have probably heard all there is to hear about the 'chess learning order'. Tactics are exciting, so everybody wants to talk about tactics. Playing 'Live Chess' should sharpen anybody's tactical eye. I'm sure that you have heard about learning the endgame. I would recommend you study 'the Tarrasch Rules', because they're easy to remember and pretty simple to understand (though Tarrasch can get rather deep). I am beginning to see that there cannot be enough emphasis on endgame study.
Believe it or not, the best study on openings that I've ever seen was not even about openings per se, but about various pawn structures. This was applicable to openings, middlegame strategies, and ultimately endgame scenarios. Once I looked at this study, I began to see more clearly why it's so difficult to beat masters; they know how to maintain good pawn structure, and compromise their opponent's pawn structure. I believe (and I say this with the deepest humility) that you can play well against anybody at any juncture of a game if you constantly consider pawn structure. I challenge you to look at the games that you lost to good players. You'll discover in most cases that before their tactical egg was hatched that won the piece, their pawns were positioned.
If you memorize some opening lines, then that's OK. But if you get an understanding of various pawn structures, then you'll know WHY you make the moves you memorize.
I would say:
You are always going to be working on your tactics, or should. That's just because
chess is hugely tactics (or calculation, if you prefer), and mistakes in tactics
determine the result of essentially every game you and I are likely to play.
So yup, tactics is a permanent part of training from day one.
Now as for openings: From very early on we should be working on openings.
At first learning the classical principles of occupying and controlling the center,
then developing our pieces to continue that fight over space. So from almost
the beginning we work on openings and properly so. It is a common mistake for
players to "book up" (or memorize) lots of opening lines, but it is not a mistake
to be aware of a good variety of book lines if they are being studied as examples
of correct opening principles. Occupying the center, attacking the center, flank
attack on the center, attack on a defender of the center (Ruy: e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5),
liquidating or locking up the center, just seeing where the pieces go and where
the action is. The point of the opening, in serious play, is to get a playable
middlegame. If you have a handle on the opening principles you will get
that unless you've made a tactical error. Later on when you are meeting tough
and well-prepared opponents, you will probably be committing a number of
book lines to memory. I guess we all know when that time arrives because in
post-mortem after post-mortem our opponents are telling us significant things
about our less than perfect first 12 moves or so, even though we know the
opening principles well. Well, that's just how it is I guess. When you take the
books out of computers they do less well too even though they have an
excellent idea of the center and space and time and material.
Believe it or not, the best study on openings that I've ever seen was not even about openings per se, but about various pawn structures. This was applicable to openings, middlegame strategies, and ultimately endgame scenarios. Once I looked at this study, I began to see more clearly why it's so difficult to beat masters; they know how to maintain good pawn structure, and compromise their opponent's pawn structure. I believe (and I say this with the deepest humility) that you can play well against anybody at any juncture of a game if you constantly consider pawn structure. I challenge you to look at the games that you lost to good players. You'll discover in most cases that before their tactical egg was hatched that won the piece, their pawns were positioned.
If you memorize some opening lines, then that's OK. But if you get an understanding of various pawn structures, then you'll know WHY you make the moves you memorize.
Pawn Structure Chess (Soltis) is often recommended. I'm not sure at what level
it becomes appropriate though. Great subject for sure.
Tactics is not TECHNICALLY calculation, although calculationn often is involved.
Let us start with Kotov's candidate move thinking method. This is technically tactical as it is not strategical.
1. Pick a candidate move (no calculation yet)
2. Think of any responses your opponent might play to EACH move (no calculation)
3. NOW calculate each line separately (yeah, theres some calc now)
So you see, there is no line between calculation and openings being more important as Kotov demonstrated. Anyone can use his system
basic opening principles are perfectly fine up to 1800 at least. might even be an advantage of sorts to play those off-beat openings against people who don't really understand their memorized openings yet. - I think kasparov said something like that you shouldn't concern yourself with openings until you're 2000+.
that said, accumulating experience in a specific opening will always have it's advantages. especially in fast play knowing your lines saves a great deal of time, which is often a decisive advantage.
and there's no such point as 'enough tactics'. at least not before IM-level. -of course you can't always be doing tactics, but it's good to keep in mind that you're probably never as good at tactics as you could be.
This is a question for the more advanced players here.
At what point do tactics become not enough and openings become important?
I see a lot of forum posts where advanced players tell the rabble not to bother with openings and I totally agree.
Beginner to intermediate where is that line drawn?
and...
What is the logical progresion, tactics first, then?
thanks.