Studying openings is highly UNDERrated!

They were taught to play that way by park tacticians and were influenced by blitz players purse snatchers muggers they smash their opponents and run away no finesse or quality to their play.

   I still have to shake my head when I hear that openings don't matter much and that endings are the most important.

   You see, I started playing chess in the 1950ies. At that time, openings were emphasized again and again and again in most chess books. Reason: if you screw up the opening, you'll be screwed by the mid game and may never get to an end game.

   Don't get me wrong. There are three parts to a game: opening, mid game and end game. They are all important It is best to be proficient in all three.

   To shrug off the opening as "not important" boggles my mind.

Completely agree.

   And I don't mean memorizing all the lines, book moves, names of all the openings. I know that many players today focus on memorization more than understanding.

   Understanding the basic concepts and reasons for the opening moves is the key. For example: Why is f4 a good opening move? It takes control of the center and at the same time allows an attack diagonal for both the Q and KB...in addition facilitates a speedy castling on the K side.

   Stuff like that. 

Really? Wow... is the move Ke1-f2 regarded as castling?

I guess you wanted to say e4, not f4, right?

Yes...of course. Old age must be creeping in. 

I learned chess in the sixties and I don't remember then the hostility towards opening study I hear today.

Of course back then there was not nearly so much opening theory and less than 1% as many opening books. Amateurs in the US mostly got by on Modern Chess Openings and whatever they read in the few chess magazines available.

One of my favorite chess writers back then was Fred Reinfeld: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Reinfeld#Books_on_chess

Looks like I'm the first after 2 months