Decline of the tactics...Please read and comment.

It depends on how far you want to go. Myself I started learning chess with openings, my first rating was 1462, over the years it climbed to +- 1900 and there it stayed. I'm a better than average club player, but further improvement is extremely hard (too many bad habits in my thinking process to unlearn).

And I know several people who've never cared about openings, have always concentrated on endings, tactics and strategy, and are now 2200-2300 and finding they should really start to do something about their openings if they want to improve any further.

So it depends on what you want.

memorizing openings is pointless, but principles can be more  important

Still, some array of opening knowledge is important

Looks like tactics is winning by 7 so far...

If we are talking about relative novices who have mastered how the pieces move and the rules, I'm inclined to go along with those who advocate a combined approach. Too often, I think, people think in "either/or" terms. There's comfort, I suppose, in a black or white scenario, but the truth is usually somewhere in the vast gray zone in between.

For a beginner, I'd advocate basic endgame study. Know how to mate with K & Q vs. lone K; K & two rooks vs. lone K; K & R vs. lone K. Become good at it. Learn basic K & P vs. K endgames -- which of them lead to promotion and how to draw those which don't. Get some idea of the power of having the opposition.

Learn a few basic openings a few moves deep, and get a hint of the ideas which follow. This is emphatically NOT a recommendation for memorizing long lines, nor multiple variations. The idea is to be able to get a few pieces developed without making silly pointless moves. Along with this is the notion of learning general principles. If one can combine a three or four or occasionally five move opening "book" with those principles, it can be a help. As the player (and the strength of his opposition) improves, the depth of the knowledge can be extended deeper into the opening. The point is, the beginner shouldn't have to reinvent the wheel without at least having the clue, "round."

Tactics make up the balance of it. Again, starting with basics -- pins, forks, discovered attacks, etc. Learn how to use them. Learn how to avoid them. Learn, eventually, how to play in order to set them up.

ALL of these are important and should be presented, if not simultaneously, then in rapid succession to the novice.

I knew how to play (as a novice) for many years. My level jumped significantly when I allowed myself to begin to study openings. The same was true of endgames. While my decade long "vacation" from chess has left me a little rusty, I can still sit down with most players and (usually) not embarrass myself too badly.

interesting...

If you are an advanced player, both are eqally important!

This is a ridiculous approximation. Given titled players generally occupy 2500-2700+ here, to think a 2300 player is 1800 FIDE (as USCF is pretty much 100 higher than FIDE) is pure fantasy.

Yes, and one that makes sense.

tactics all the way, openings are dull , who gets excited by openings? its forks and pins and traps that get the blood pumping. and ive just past 100 member points, so to treat myself i'll go off subject,just once, GO VIKINGS AND JETS TOMORROW NIGHT, i won't be playing chess while thats going on

Yeah, openings are fun to talk about

But openings help avoid a tactical defeat, because they give you a solid position from which to defend. Usually only later in the game do tactical maneuvers happen, right?

Openings are one of my favorite things to learn about. The only tedious way to learn openings is to with no thought look at endless theory with no explanation. It helps if you try to come up with your own analysis first and compare it, because you learn a lot at that point when you have put a lot of thought into it as to why certain moves were book moves while possibly similar ones are not.

Elubas, its just a matter of what i like about the game, i play to a certain standard, i don't study it, i love chess but its the fight of a middle game that ive always enjoyed. no offence, thats why i don't like openings, i want the fists to fly, the walking round 1st bit bores me. and im 25years a bills fan by the way, hate getting behind the jets but well? colts?

I like openings...and I like the middle.  I currently...and possibly will always...despise the endgame.

I will say tactics are a bit more fun than openings...

But openings can't be that much torture

any more votes?

A good opening usually leads to more and/or better tactical possibilities. And how can someone like tactics and not endgames? It's all part of the same thing.

 I vote for tactics like nearly everyone else but your opening assumption is wrong-most beginners are NOT focusing more on getting a solid opening strategy rather than tactical play.

No problem.