I'm of the opinion that chess study is most effective when it's holistic. Focusing on memorizing lines in the opening is a waste at the lower class levels, but studying the opening for general ideas, where the pieces need to go (and WHY) helps understand the middle game plans that arise from the opening.
But even more importantly than that, it makes the game more enjoyable. No one likes making their 6th move and realizing they're already lost and now it's just a matter of time until the strategic or tactical error they've just committed ends the game. It's much more fun to be making the 26th move and realizing that there's still plenty of chess to be played and you're still in the game.
So one of the biggest reasons to spend a bit of time on the openings is precisely for the enjoyment factor.
A book like "FCO" that goes over most of the common openings and talks about the plans that come out of the openings, combined with a book like Soltis' Pawn Formation's book, can really help connect openings to middle game plans. And in my mind, once a player has shown the ability to exercise a proper thinking process consistently, and is not making gross tactical errors consistently, it's time to add some small amount of opening study to their study regimen.
Now, all that said -- I'm still only rated in the 1400's OTB, so I may well be completely wrong. But I do know that I ENJOY studying a lot more when there is variety in the work, and if I followed some recommendations of "tactics, tactics and then more tactics," I would probably not study nearly as much nor enjoy the game as much. I don't know that my method will take someone to GM level, or even to 1800. But I do know that it's what I do, and I'm improving at a rate that is sufficient for me, and it keeps me interested in the game and allows me to enjoy the game whiel I'm improving.
Hello all, I have always heard that a player of my level should not focus on openings, That I should just focus on tatics and endgame. The problem I have with that is That I always seem to come out of the opening at least a pawn down mainly because of not knowing the opening. Such things like not knowing what square to put my B on, Or what to recapture with. These things are happening like 5-10 moves later and I am always like "I shoud have but that THERE!" But, however, If I knew the opening, at least some, I would not make that silly mistake in the opening.
I have done a little experiment, I studied e4 openings, mainly the Ruy, and not studied any d4 opening at all. I also continue to work on tactic and endgame study. I have found that just putting my peices on good squares against d4 openings usually leaves my down at least a pawn going into the middle game. while agains e4 opening, which I have looked into, I come out of the opening at least even. I think opening theory is something that people need to study, at least some, early in their chess playing.