I personally think this idea of not studying openings until you reach X rating seems a little silly. It seems to say "Completely ignore one part of the game, but study the rest." I feel like it'd be like me telling a piano student not to learn to read music, or no decent music until you learn to play crap like Czerny, or no Beethoven until you get your 16th note scales up to 200 BPM, or no improvising or composing until you've learnt a larger variety of harmonies. It's ignoring one important part for others.
I'd agree that not memorizing these openings might be best, but looking at them and thinking about what's going on and trying to figure out what purpose the moves have would probably be worthwhile. I'd also agree that studying tactics is probably more important than the openings, but if your opening skills are so bad you don't get to use tactics, then what's the point of studying tactics?
Yeah lol i actually did that in piano 8 years ago. I was Grade 3 (ABRSM) and attempted to play la campanella. result=disaster as it took me one year to play it right and at the right speed.
However....piano NOT= chess
If you learn openings i think learning the meaning behind the moves/plans aren't too difficult, even for the average 1200.
Now, I'm going for cziffra's version of flight of the bumblebee and still failing lol :P
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8alxBofd_eQ
fastest piano video EVARRRR
Yes, but you know there is more to the piano than just speed, right?
I would just know pawn structures very well and the advantages of the minor pieces based on those structures so after that you will have an idea whats the opens are all about.