How much do you study tactics

The optimal way is searching for your weakest point and expanding on it. My weakest point is probably tactics so for me it would be tactics. But if your weak point is the opening you can practice that instead. Just find out your greatest weakness and focus on it.

My weakest point is getting toasted in the openings. If I make one move that is (questionable) or in my opinion tactical, my whole game becomes somewhat imbalanced and virtually is better for the other side. 

I try and study tactics every day. While I do not agree with de la Maza's book, his concept that improving tactics is necessary to get better I agree with. Pattern recognition is key. I use the three free tactics training I get each day with chess.com, as well as CT Art and some books.

Understanding how to get out of the opening and the main concepts is important but most games by amateurs feature multiple missed tactical opportunities and if you can find these you will win more games.

i guess it's just too true, but i don't like tactics, they seem to me like dabbling with the technical side of chess, instead of getting deep inside the strategy behind chess... so it is very difficult to limit yourself to blunderchecking every move in lightning speed without knowing whether it is "objectivly" correct in the position... (the three dots mean that i have more to say, but i am suprised i said everything to this point!)

Unquestionably, tactics are important to my chess games. I'm certain that I could win more games if I could improve my chess tactics. Maybe that's why I like chess dot com so much, because of the tactics trainer and the daily puzzle. I also like the daily puzzles, grandmaster games and instructional videos at www.jrobichess.com.

I put my heart and soul into the TT, and I've been rewarded with instantly seeing certain patterns, especially weaknesses on the 7th rank.

Tactics are only a stepping stone to what an ideal chess player should be.  Tactics can only take a player so far and will become less important as the player progresses to greater opponents.

absolutely.   someone who swept me in a match,2-0,  recomended the following...

tactics, tactics, tactics.  surprising someone in the opening on something you have been studying for months may or may not happen.  we all win and lose games on tactics every single time we play.

Tactics are very important, as every player and coach worth their salt will readily tell you.

But to say it's the only thing for U2000 players to study is a joke.  It's like looking at a long chain of events, each dependant on the last, then claiming the last event before a catastrophy was the only event.  The truth is chess is 99% tactics, but only a small percentage of the moves are a tactic.  The moves that facilitate such positions make up the majority of chess.

If you hang pieces for nothing, or if you lose pieces to BASIC tactics such as walking into a one mover (fork, pin, skewer, etc) then yes, hit the tactical books.

Players above 1600 USCF though have, for the most part, moved passed these gross blunders and opening theory, endgame technique, and middlegame understand are the factors that lead their games into winning or ruinous positions.

The fact that such positions culminate in a tactic is a red herring. 

Mesa's book is a joke as far as I'm concerned.  The only person I know of who followed his advice was himself, and it burnt him out.  The overwhelmingly boring and two dimensional play caused him to give up chess.  Not to mention if you see any of his games he plays mainline openings and obviously has some grasp of strategy.

IM David Pruess recommends 15 minutes tactics training per day every day. 

Estragon: don't you think that learning a few moves as black in some sharp e4 e5 openings is a good idea for a beginner? I find it easy to get crushed early in king's gambit, scotch game, bishops opening and italian game if you don't know any responses to the first moves.

Knowing how to respond to very aggressive openings, just 4-5 moves deep or so, has been very helpful to me.

Sure, tactics and general opening principles are of course important, but I don't think it's a bad idea to do some basic opening preparation even at the novice level.

I do a minimum of 50 problems every day, and when I feel like it I push to 100. I do a lot of other training too, but I think this is the primary reason I've seen a lot of improvement. That's not even close to the only chess training I do, but I feel like it's a major cog in the machine, so to speak. I'm no de la Maza, but I've had some pretty sweet OTB ratings gains in the last year that most people would envy.

@Jazzist: The thing about openings is that you shouldn't have to directly study them very much. I studied a lot of master games and do a lot of journal annotations of my own games. Between the two, I've picked up more than enough opening theory for a class player, and I often find that when my opponent breaks out an opening I don't recognize I can still play "book" moves pretty deep into the game just from principles.  The only two openings I studied directly with the intention of learning them are the Evan's Gambit and the basic long castling setup for white against the Sicilian. I will admit those two were *very* productive uses of my time.

I don't study tactics at all

hehehehehehe..

Tactics make up everything, even endgames. There are basic mates like bishop and knight vs king that have become easy for me (once more difficult than you could imagine) because of tactics and tactical ideas. It will allow you to judge any position better, even if there aren't any tactics, because you will be able to foresee any danger coming up.

Tactics are in all openings,In all positional play,and endgame.Cause as to the fact that every plan, must lead to a justified, eventual positional, or tactical sacrifice which either wins,loses or leads to a draw in every game. Even if this positional or tactical winning combination( Defined as a tactic or series of tactics) leads to a quiet passed pawn,assuming this was the plan. Or a king attack. Due to thee, before mentioned " tactic " This discovery leads to 1 true conclusion that tactics are neccessary for every part of the chess game whether that part is near or far away You motherfackers!!!!.Id say the answer is tactics are the most important aspect of chess, because they are needed in the understanding of reaching ,ANY conclusion, at any time, in any game, at any, and every level and momment! Im tellin you people im on a different level, in fact im gonna be runnin for the GOTDAMN MAYOR OF THIS TOWN Wooooooooohaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. You dumb bastards, through logic alone i have proven that chess is in its PUREST AND COMPLETE FORM..hold on let me sniffle........... BY DEFINITION IS IN AND OF ITSELF ...PURE TACTICS!!!!           Or as gentlemen would put it The atom of the WHOLE GOTDAMN CHESS WORLD BOOOOOOOOM!!!