Why are new players addicted to openings?

This is actually all about what the best way is to learn chess for beginners. In general terms you are right in saying that the opening has big influence in the rest of the game. The problem is often that this leads to the misconception that beginners should learn opening theory first. I think it's a mistake. As I said before, knowing the general opening principles is for a beginner enough to play and get experience. If with this they focus on basic strategy and tactics they improve faster.

I've known many beginners who have learned opening variations by heart. At the moment that I choose a move that "was not in the book!" they loose track and choose the wrong strategy because they don't understand the ideas behind the opening.

good openings leads to a good mid-game which then leads to good endings

That is correct. When you do a bad move in the beginning it is very difficult to win the game at the end.

Openings are fun to study, but beginners should study tactics for breakfast, lunch and dinner. That will help in all phases.

it depends on the game... i am sometimes in about normal paced turnaments (about 50 10), i don't know most openings i encounter beyond move 8... :( but even though i get about fair results, through not messing up too bad once i realise my opponent is actualy playing all the moves from memory with me having no clue, i mostly get quite fair results depending on my middlegame and endgame play... i almost never lose in the opening... even though i get cramped positions quite often :(

I've seen a lot of GM advice to beginners about studying endgames first, because the opening and middlegame are played with regard to how the resultant endgame will come.

In this case, those GMs are totally wrong.

I understand why they say that, though.  No doubt, endgame play is the foundation of all the phases of the game -- AT THAT LEVEL.  The disconnect is this: beginner games seldom reach that point where it matters.  Games are decided almost entirely on comparative tactical strength (or lack thereof), with opening & middlegame strategy gaining importance as rating rises.  It's not until you reach Class A or B before you consistently play in near-balanced endgames.

In that light, it's understandable why players choose to spend some time learning their opening systems.  Everyone they play against is going to have some knowledge of openings, so if they don't have *some* knowledge of the same, they're going to be coming out of it at a consistent disadvantage.  I don't disagree that many people put way too much effort into their openings, but some knowledge is critical at any level.  You get a lot of bang for the buck by finding some familiar starting ground.

How to define a "beginner" in chess ?  Is a beginner simply someone who just started playing , or can a beginner be someone who has been playing for years yet is still very weak ? There is an interesting book titled " how to improve in chess" written by many GMs, IMs and even they dont agree on whats the best way....some stress studying endgames first, others do not . I understand the reasoning behind the former group is that : if you dont know what to do with K+p  v K+p  how will you possibly understand what to do with a board full of 32 pieces ?! If you watch the games of beginners how many of them reach endings in which they are not already lost ? I dont care if you play rook endings like a Smyslov if you get your queen trapped in the opening or get mated in the middlegame it will do you NO GOOD. Its only logical that you must be at least surviving the openings before studying middlegames and then you must be reaching at least endings in which you arent lost before you really need a lot of ending knowledge. I do agree that studying tactics in chess is good in all phases of chess, tactics occur in all phases very regularly.

Yeah, I guess you strike a strong point there. Guidance is required so that such a misconception doesnt occur.

Opening is very important on chess. Beginners have to choice openings which leads position where they like. Have to understand ideas behind of openings, study very well them. Second is endgame understanding and third is middlegame....

 Yes, that's the point - they're beginners.

I'm not a beginner and the opening is by far the easiest to study. For example, have you ever wondered why grandmasters make moves you would've never thought of in a position? It is all of their experience in their thoughts that led them to make that move in their game. This doesn't usually help players lower than master level (unless they are instructive and or annotated well). By studying the opening, you look at positions you are likely to come across and think of what you plan to do in the middlegame without actually playing someone first. Obviously, you will be very prepared in your opening (a book on it is recomended) and hopefully the middlegame that will be there to come. That is a big advantage, at least at 1500+ level. For beginners though, they should really only play simple openings and just learn opening principles because knowing what to do in the middlegame is more important than getting a good position because you won't know how to take advantage of it. The endgame is probably most important, because there are just so many tricks in it which especially for beginners but definitley stronger players too, could very easily end up losing or drawing in positions when they are a whole piece up or up a few pawns, which is considered a point of resignation for masters. But eventually openings become quite important. They should be learned alot once they understand middlegame strategy and have a good understanding of the middlegame.

u need to know the principles behind the opening moves and then you can play against any opening without thinking oh no i dont no this variation im going to lose ......i got a big fat book with more openings than you can throw a stick at and all it done was confuse me ........mind you that aint to hard lol

Elubas said it shortly and clearly...

My first attempt to learn chess consisted of taking an openings book, and memorizing lines.  Just memorizing.  It went really well; One win and thirteen losses later, I decided to switch up my approach.

Give a beginner a list of tactics, examples, practice problems, and some basic opening principles, and they'll be good to go.

There is the added benefit of opennings being well defined. Opennings, are by definitions, started from a set position, making it easy for beginners to follow step-by-step progression. Middle and end games are more abstract and can require individual analysis (beginners may think that opennings require no analysis - just simply look at the win-draw-loss percentages to determine your moves).

I cannot fault the logic of learning the beginnings to a game versus mid/end games. If you cannot make it to an end or mid game, what's the point? Beginners are more likely to be checkmated and seek checkmates instead of ending up with a king v king-pawn ending. If you error in the beggining, the middle and end games can be mute.

I think the logic of many beginners with opening study is that if they can get a good or better opening than their opponent, then they should be able to sustain that advantage throughout the rest of the game, not realizing that middle and endgame principles are worlds of their own, full of complexity and subtlety much different from the opening.

This isn't to say that openings should be ignored, I just think one should try to keep their opening repertoires simple and straightforward for both sides, and learn general opening principples. It took me awhile to listen to the wisdom of stronger players and realize you'll get the best of your studytime as a beginner studying tactics and endgame.