I also prefer "endgame study." That's my personal priority. Keres, Shereshevky, and Nunn especially.
But lots of folks in this thread apparently "insist" that you will never reach the endgame, playing against them. And they might be right. 
So one might study the royal game in "reverse." First endgames, then middlegames, and openings last. But lots of folks would probably disagree with this suggestion.
Your only goal in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame . If you are worse , even lost , out of the opening then ofcourse you need to do some opening work most likely. If you hang pieces regularly nothing is gonna be of much help until you stop hanging pieces. This is a tactics/vision problem and can happen in any phase of the game.
Your only goal in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame .
Very true. This is a saying of the great Lajos Portisch, which was also expessed in a slightly different style by Harry Golombek.
I always feel like staring up some new games when I'm losing all of mine. ::sigh::
There is also an FM at my club whose rating hovered around 2250 for years, then he started to decide his first move at random, by rolling a pair of dice before the game. So he constantly had to play stuff like 1...f6, 1.c3, etc. He did that for a couple of years and his rating was still hovering around 2250, has since quit and still no difference to his rating ...
It's interesting to see this anecdote, for it describes my personal experience rather well: after about 20 to 30 games with ANY opening, I play at the same strength as my long-establish rating. Now, that's not to say that if I really understood my openings, my rating wouldn't be higher. But, it is to say that with the effort I have been willing to put into opening study, I get about the same results regardless.
I find it interesting that so many people agree that endgames should be at the level of the player (see Silman's well regarded endgame course for example). But that same consideration doesn't really seem to extend to openings.
A Class C player needs to know more than "move knights before bishops." Sure if they are memorizing Najdorf lines 25 ply deep they're wasting time. But if you're trying to figure out when to attack d4 and when to push f6 in a french defense, that is general positional knowledge of an opening (assuming you play the french) that will help you win games at that level.
At what point should you start to play mainlines. I always played mainlines as Black, but had a narrow repertoire. My White repertoire consisted of sidelines which initially served me well. I then reached a point where the stronger players were equalizing without effort when I was White. I agree that you shouldn't expect your openings to win games for you, but I think you need to pose enough opening problems to wear your opponent down some, and at least be able to play for a win even if he replies correctly.
At what point should you start to play mainlines.
I think there's no hard rule here, but if you're ambitious, the sooner the better
Usually, beginners don't start right away with mainlines because they're a bit complex to handle, but working with mainlines can only help you develop your chess skills.
Your only goal in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame .
Very true. This is a saying of the great Lajos Portisch, which was also expessed in a slightly different style by Harry Golombek.
As big of a opening fan I am I still agree with this I only study opening untill i know I can reach a flexable/playable middlegame
Your only goal in the opening is to reach a playable middlegame .
Very true. This is a saying of the great Lajos Portisch, which was also expessed in a slightly different style by Harry Golombek.
As big of a opening fan I am I still agree with this I only study opening untill i know I can reach a flexable/playable middlegame
I wish I could've been a opening fan too... since the many openings and their countless variations allow to make too much mistakes as a beginner. Openings are worrying me the most because I don't understand the logic behind many moves and replies (except for popular easy e4 openings).
More reason to jump on that diamond membership, TheCabal. IM's David Pruess and Danny Rensch have recently released beginner videos on openings. IM Pruess shows the virtue of each and every first move possible and IM Rensch bravely does a survey of all the major openings. GM Kaidanov has a video on "how to develop an opening repetoire" that also surveys the major openings, but from the perspective of what is appropriate for your personality type. Great stuff-all of it.
Mainline openings are fine for OTB chess at regular time controls, and also for correspondence chess. But if you want to actually practice your openings. Over and over again, at G/10 to G/60 speed, you probably need a "narrow repetoire."
If you still insist on playing "mainline openings" with white, then use Tony Kosten, "The Dynamic English" (1999, and only @150 pages) against everything black plays. And buy yourself a couple "repetorie books" for the black side.
"Study brings wisdom, practice brings perfection," Johann Hellsten, Mastering Chess Strategy, (2010). This book arguably contains all the (thematic) "tactics" you will ever need for the middlegame.
Buy you yourself some good books on the endgame, by James Howell, John Nunn, or Jeremy Silman. Study them systematically. Then "you're done" with the study time you need to reach USCF A Class or higher.
But if you don't narrow your openings, then every game is still "an adventure." And you are not getting the "thematic practice" and "thematic middlegames" you will obtain from playing a more narrow repetorie.
But if you don't have a life outside of chess. Then of course, play "the mainlines." More power to you. And plan to hire a chess coach to help you through the opening maze, and the maze of "thematic middlegames" you will inevitably obtain.
Indeed, "Every Game An Adventure." There is a bridge bidding system with roughly the same name.
Openings and endgames can be learned systematically and played relatively fast.
Middlegames are full of "suprises," both tactical and strategic, and it's very, very, easy to make "unnecessary" pawn moves that effectively weaken your postion in the middlegame.
But it's entirely possible to play "safe," narrow openings, and to play "defensively" during the middlegame--focusing on "safe exchanges" ala the Genede Nesis "Tactical Chess Exchanges" and "Exchanging to Win in the Endgame," books."
And if you are willing to simplify middlegame positions, via "safe piece exchanges," then you will certainly reach an endgame. Preferably a level one, at least. Then you are free to "play for a win."
But if you play into the teeth of sharp, mainline, classical openings, then of course you might not ever get into the endgame. As the three games listed above amply demonstrate.
But if you're playing the white pieces, then surely (using the suggestions above) you can probably force you're opponent (via simplifying exchanges) into a "level endgame." Just use the Edgar Mednis book (@1982) "From the Opening into the Endgame," and blast you way (with white) into the endgame.
And "endgame knowledge" will win games, BUT only if you'll willing to adjust your openings and middle game tactics to actually reach those endgames.
So don't take risks, and wait until you reach the endgame, before playing for a win. I seem to recall that Pal Benko was "greatly feared" for this type of play.
And as for what phases of the game to study most, isn't that mostly a personal preference? And the source of endless, mindless, blathering arguments, about what personal chess style is "the best" way to reach whatver chess level is being asserted.
In my experience [USCF A Class, five times, but never over 1900, OTB] chess players in the 90+ percentile (>1800 USCF) are largely obsessed with the game, and devote @3-4 weekends per month competing. Their wives are chess widows.
Personally, I belive any "serious student" of the game can make USCF B Class (1600-1799) in 1-2 years by studying just Tactics and Endgames and playing regularly, OTB. But to play consistently above 1800 USCF you'll need a different, "business model." And probably one that's adapted to your personal style and preferences.
So if 90 percent of active OTB tournament players (in the U.S.) never break 1800 USCF, then how high a rating can you get "without touching openings?
Probably 1800 USCF, if you are (at least) partly "obsessed" with the game. And lower still if you are not so obsessed.
I don't know anyone above USCF 1900 who isn't "obsessed with the game," or retired, or both. Indeed, lots of the retirees have preserved their ratings because that have stopped competing OTB. If they starting competing OTB, or G/15 or G/30 again, "the kids" would have them for lunch, and they know it.
Floors would keep them from going below a certain level.