I'm 1520 fide and losing because the opening

You are wellcome! And let me know what do you think about the website.

Abraços,

torrubirubi

The main problem is that in most cases, the game wasn't lost due to the opening choice. Very few games are lost out of the opening if general opening principles are being followed, especially sub-expert level. 

Sure, a player may get a sub-optimal opening. However, one or both of the players are going to make a number of other mistakes in the middle game and endgame that are going to be reason for the game outcome and studying things that help overcome those errors are likely to be of more benefit than studying opening lines to much depth (other than basic ideas).

edit after reading a bit of the early discussion: Playing sharp openings might require some opening study or you can get busted pretty quickly. That said, tactics, general strategy and endgames will probably produce more benefits than studying opening line where your opponent is likely to deviate from your knowledge within 4-6 moves and their move choice isn't going to be something that just loses either.

Martin, these are certainly true, but, as I wrote before, I think the trick is how much you learn. Few people seem to realise that you can learn a lot on tactics, strategy and (if you follow master games in the study lines) endgames by studying openings. The idea of avoiding learning openings has probably to do with the fact that chess novices will often lose, even if they learn some opening lines. Fact is that they will lose against almost everybody, it is not the opening which is the cause of the lost games, but the players. However, without knowing some lines very well (but not in depth), chess players can be often crushed against people on the same game level but with a better idea how to develop in the opening. I think every player have to work rather from the beginning on all phases of the game. With a  huge gap in the opening knowledge you will hot have much possibilities to show your skills in endgames and tactics.

Lawkeito;  go play 960 for awhile:  there are NO openings.  Then you can see if it's your play or the openings that is the problem.

Yes, this is a good idea. You have to think already on move one, as you would be in the middlegame.

i totally disagree.

Opening is part of the game.

U have to understand how to develop pieces if u want to improve.

There is some harmony in classical chess (i mean piece placement in the beginning  and other thing like that), u don't have this in 960.

960 is another game.

960 is good as an exercise, to force you think from move one on.  It is not a substitute to learn openings. 

Coaches usually do not mention 960 because they prepare their students to play regular chess. I think that 960 can be an interesting experience for a while to begin to see the initial position as something you have to think about.

About the pro of playing 960: It is similar to training tactics which arises from openings which you never play. Ideally you should only train tactics from games which arise from your opening lines, as you will have more chances to improve your pattern recognition related to pawn structures and pieces placements which are relevant to you. But openings can deviate so much from usual paths that you have chances to get matting patterns which are more common to other openings. 

IF YOU haven't played 960 ; then you don't know what the game is !!! ONE must start to think on the first move if you are BLACK.  Besides we are not here to promote 960.  We want to know if Lawkeito problem is openings or his general play.  This will tell him.

Ok, first of all, don't play the hippo, or other such crap. Part of chess growth is learning to play the opening, meaning real openings that let you fight for an advantage. There is nothing wrong with incorporating learning openings into your overall chess training program.

What you should NOT do is blindly memorize theory without understanding the principles of the opening for both colors. When I started serious chess as a kid in Russia, they taught us comprehensively - endgames, tactics, and openings as well: main lines, including various open sicilians. If you understand he principles, the moves come much more easily. And if you find yourself in a different, unfamiliar line, knowing the principles will help you find the right idea.

So you never played 960 either ?   All opening are REAL openings !!!!

Part of chess growth is learning to play 960.   And even 3D chess.

"To wit", "on balance", and the statistic about the percentage of games played by players above 1800, usually accompanied by the phrase "busy guys". We only got "to wit" this time, but who knows what we might get next!

Those who know what I'm talking about know what I'm talking about, and if you're confused then it's alright. I'm not adding anything of consequence to the conversation except an observation about a certain poster 

That's right, as you can see from my 2200+ 960 rating on here. 960 is fun, and may help with some chess skills, but isn't quite chess, and also has nothing to do with the OP's question. But you, sir, clearly have superior qualifications for suggesting correct chess training methods compared to both me and the IM who disagreed with you earlier.

While I think that it is extremely important to develop well from the opening, but if you don't play well tactically, or with a good strategy, once the opening is over, knowing an opening well, won't save you from losing. I personally think your tactical ability is lagging behind your rating range. I also don't recommend fast chess as means of exercise for learning. Rapid is as fast as I would go and truthfully recommend slower time controls for learning.

Its the same old game ...

Thank you for your tips, I started yesterday a new training in tactics with the step method. I will only study some ideas in the openings (and after the tactic training program) not concrete variants for now.