When do you need to learn openings?

A lot of people have told me that in my rating you don't need to know a lot about openings. So when do you need to learn openings? I feel like it's my openings that ruin games for me now. I know a lot of openings but only 3 or 4 moves of the opening. The Italian game and Queens gambit declined is the only openings that I'm good at. I'm good at tactics and don't have any problems to come up with a plan to attack my opponent. I'm 1600+ in tactics but I still struggle to get over 1300 in blitz and bullet. I'm 1550 in daily chess.

So my question is, when do I need to learn more about openings and what openings do I need to learn. Should I learn a little bit of every opening or a few that I become really good at?

I don't know the openings and I'm about as strong as you are. I can't visualize developing at all. It causes me to lose a lot of OTB games in traps straight away, against people that I could normally beat.

I've asked for help from chess teachers, and they have said that to work on my openings will cost me more money than a normal lesson. I don't get that. A student's games should be analyzed for weaknesses and the chess teacher should focus on the weaker phases of the game, not charge them more because one phase happens to be the opening.

When I did the chess personality test it recommended the following openings:

As white: Queens Gambit and Ruy Lopez

As black: Caro Kann and Sicilian Defense

I don't play any of this openings now. Could these be good openings for me to learn now?

zBorris. It's the same for me, I can fall for a trap in the beginning and have a worse position from around move 7.

This has been asked repeatedly here.  You will get all kinds of diferent answers.  But in the end the answer is up to you.  

I have read things that say serious opening study doesnt need to start until youre around USCF 2000.  Some agree...some dont.  

All i can do is give you my story.  I made it to USCF A class on pretty much opening principles:

Control the center.

Develop minor pieces toward the center.

Castle.

Connect your rooks.

After that, it was learning, and understanding the pawn structures associated with the openings i play.

I think what excites lower rated players ( USCF D-C-B Players) is being able to say they know an opening 20 moves deep.  Yes it sounds good, but if you dont understand the reason for those 20 moves, or what to do when your opponent doesnt play the "correct" 14th move, what do you do then?

I think that the descriptions in the pesonality test seemd like me.

anyway.... I'm somewhere between attacking and positional. I like playing aggressively. I'm intuitive. I like open positons.

Thanks Diakonia. The opening principles that you wrote is pretty much how I think in every opening. But when I play an opening that I know a little bit more about it gives me more confidence and I can play it quicker.

Thanks Areg

The correct time to start learning openings is (a + b)/2 + 100 where a is your rating and b is the rating of the lower rated player you are giving advice to or b + 100 or if you are talking to someone with a higher rating than you.

So I would suggest you don't start learning openings until around 1680 standard rating.

Diakonia would probably suggest you start learning openings around 1690 blitz.

Of course, Magnus Carlsen would suggest you start learning opening theory at around 2290 FIDE.

It depends who you talk to.

Also, everyone went from patzer to good chess player 100 rating points ago.

And chess is 99% tactics up until around a - 200 where a is the rating of the player talking.

You should study all aspects of the game. You should learn openings according to your rating level.

"If you find an opening here that appeals to you and you wish to find out more about it, the next step would be to obtain an introductory text devoted entirely to that subject." - GM John Emms in his 2006 introduction to basic opening principles, Discovering Chess Openings

"Throughout the book Emms uses excellently chosen examples to expand the readers understanding of both openings and chess in general. Thus equipped the student can carry this knowledge forward to study individual openings and build an opening repertoire. ... For beginning players, this book will offer an opportunity to start out on the right foot and really get a feel for what is happening on the board." - FM Carsten Hansen, reviewing the 2006 Emms book

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf

"Each player should choose an opening that attracts him. Some players are looking for a gambit as White, others for Black gambits. Many players that are starting out (or have bad memories) want to avoid mainstream systems, others want dynamic openings, and others want calm positional pathways. It’s all about personal taste and personal need.

For example, if you feel you’re poor at tactics you can choose a quiet positional opening (trying to hide from your weakness and just play chess), or seek more dynamic openings that engender lots of tactics and sacrifices (this might lead to more losses but, over time, will improve your tactical skills and make you stronger)." - IM Jeremy Silman (January 28, 2016)

For someone seeking help with choosing openings, I usually bring up Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014).

http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html

I believe that it is possible to see a fair portion of the beginning of Tamburro's book by going to the Mongoose Press site.

"Every now and then someone advances the idea that one may gain success in chess by using shortcuts. 'Chess is 99% tactics' - proclaims one expert, suggesting that strategic understanding is overrated; 'Improvement in chess is all about opening knowledge' - declares another. A third self-appointed authority asserts that a thorough knowledge of endings is the key to becoming a master; while his expert-friend is puzzled by the mere thought that a player can achieve anything at all without championing pawn structures.

To me, such statements seem futile. You can't hope to gain mastery of any subject by specializing in only parts of it. A complete player must master a complete game ..." - FM Amatzia Avni (2007)

Thank you all for your answers 

Personally as black, passive openings work really well.

People often mean different things when they ask about openings.  There's a difference, for example, between learning the basic ideas about the openings and learning rote theory until the nth move.

Memorizing theory is almost always a poor choice pre-master level. I got stuck in this trap.  In general, two things happen: your opponent deviates early, often on move 4, and your book-moves no longer help; or, you both play theory moves ... and now you're stuck in a master-level position facing master-level problems, and you don't know how to solve them.

Seriously, so many opening books will have lines that lead to 'equality'.  Yeah, it's completely equal ... if you're 2200+.  Such positions, especially for Black, are such that making two inaccurate moves give you huge problems.

I got stuck in the 'memorize theory' trap, and it was more or less 100% waste of time.  Learning the basic ideas, though, is time very well spent.  If you invest in FCO: Fundamental Chess Openings, it's perhaps the only book you will need for the openings.  Well, until you reach master-level and actually need to memorize.

Ground yourself in solid opening principles, then learn the openings according to your rating.

So exactly how do I learn an opening according to my rating?

Learn the London System.

Why?

It's solid as white.

Few lines critical 'to memorize'. You play the London by going over a bunch of London games, and then emulating the attacking style.  

Hard for black to get a good plan.

Try it.

London

Colle

Colle-Zukertort

Are all easy openings to play.  They have minimal theory, and are easy to understand.

Are you familiar with Silman's endgame book where he organises endgame study according to rating? I think this is a good rule of thumb regarding opening study as well.

No I have not seen that book.

I will try all the openings that you have recommended and see what i think.

An opening where I don't have to memorize a lot of moves seems good for me because I feel more comfortable in midgames.