How strong tactically should I be before concentrating on openings / plans?

Although it's true that the opening does lead to the middlegame, it doesn't necessarily mean that you should begin studying with the opening. In other words, the opening is just the series of moves that develop your pieces until you reach a position where you're ready to execute your plan. You should have a plan in mind ever since move 1, but the plan you had in move one isn't necessarily going to be the same plan in move 20. Studying openings is probably the most fun to study, but that doesn't mean it's the most important part of the game.. For a Super GM, all parts are equally important, but for almost everyone under 2000 games are decided by who understands the position better, not by who plays the opening the best. The opening may give you an edge entering the middlegame, but that doesn't matter if you don't know how to procede. Therefore most games below 2000 are decided in the middle game. Now, in my utmost opinion having a specific opening isn't of great importance until you reach a certain level. Consider GM Bryan Smith, I read in one of his articles here that for a big period of time he didn't know whether to play the Sicilian Dragon or the French Defence as Black. (He was an IM at the time he stated that) Therefore if even Titled Players struggle chosing a proper opening to stick with, then it'd be most proper to delay the opening stage until you have a better understanding of the strategies you are able and feel comfortable to create.

You can go to this forum

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/improvement-in-chess-according-to-elo

 You can spend some minutes reading the advice and then you can follow the links for the chesspersonality test and the other articles regarding improvement. The important thing is to analyze your OTB games and find what you need to practise more.

Yes I also agree with post 3.

It is highly likely that tactics study should take priority, but completely neglecting everything else and just doing tactics in a vaccum makes little sense. Do a bit of everything (and studying master games contains that) but do a bit more of tactics and  of course go play slow OTB games and analyse.

There are different levels to opening play and learning:

The basics (develop for activity and harmony/coordination of pieces, king safety (castle or not, central play (control or occupy), all the while avoiding tactical blunders)... sorta like early opening stuff. Enough for beginners, the goal of which is to just 'survive' the initial moves and reach a playable middlegame. Very general. Little or no 'book'.

Then there's thinking about the kind of middlegame transitions to aim for (based on typical pawn structures like caro-slav, carlsbad, benoni/benko/KID/closed spanish, maroczy vs hedgehog, IQP)... late opening stuff. Kinda expert stuff, more and more specific, little more book but with similar threads across many individual openings so that move-order is not so scary to anticipate.

And finally, the veeery specific individual opening theory (e.g. all the open Sicilian lines, or the Najdorf Bg5 (even more specific)), complete with its huuuuge tree of variations, sidelines, tactical tricks, move-order subtleties, all that scary book stuff beginners are really scared of. Needs good memory and prep work.

Problem is, how to manage learning through the continuum in rising up the ranks of chess strength? Well, I think the answer is in the question.

Some self-appraisal is needed here as to "where in the continuum am I?", then play at that level until your rating improves (by studying other stuff (tactics, calculation, endgame, strategy) and playing against stronger opponents), then you get to the next level in opening play.

For beginners I think you'll have to develop a simple opening repertoire and stick to it for as long as you plow through the levels of opening play and increase your overall strength. Another trend is, invest less time all the way to more time on opening study as you move through the levels and play stronger.

My two cents, guys. Enjoy.

OP,

There are phases to a chess game (opening, middlegame, endgame) and there are UNIVERSALS to the game which cut through all 3 phases, you have to realise this.

The universals usually relate to two: Strategy (the 'spiritual', if you will) and Tactics (the 'physical').

Really, this is the summary of a chess game.

You get the most bang for the buck investing more time on the universals than in the individual phases, because they follow you all through any game.

That said, you also have to invest time studying the phases. How much for each?

The problem with the opening phase is, so much book, so many opinions on which is 'the best' or 'the most played', so many books and DVDs out there (are you gonna read and buy them all?), lots of obsession with the stuff. I think people are just scared of quick losses and embarrassment and feeling unintelligent or something, I dunno.

If you are starting out, like I posted earlier, less time on openings (and not so deep too) and more time on the other phases, and the universals, will give you the much desired confidence that you can play CHESS, regardless of opening. Then you study the openings a little more and more as you rise up, or as needed.

Study all the aspects of the game but give less time to opening study.

You should start learning some basic openings (let's say first 8-10 moves) from the beginning of your career, with the caveat that you understand the ideas behind these moves.

Which openings?

As White (choose one):

Ruy Lopez

Scotch Game

Italian Game

Four Knights

As Black:

Against 1.e4: learn to play against the openings above SLOWLY--don't start memorizing tons of lines.

Against 1.d4, 1.c4, 1.Nf3: Queen's Gambit Declined.

Of course, you should also do tactics problems and start working on your endgame knowledge and technique.

TS if you have money, I suggest you get books like Winning Chess Strategy by Seirawan and Understanding Chess Endgames by Nunn.