Nice to see the thread getting a response!! 

I have to agree with what Top Notch said about dividing up time on each aspect of the game. I used to be very strong on openings when in my teens, but now have devoted more time to the middle and endgame. Now i consider my endgame play to be pretty strong, my opening play to be ok and my middlegame good positionally but in need of attention in shrp situations. The probl;em with my lack of study of developing opening theory is that i tend to struggle to seize the initiative as white.

This is starting to feel like a confession in church, but its food for thought for me at least!!

I'm not so sure I agree that the Sicilian Dragon is a difficult opening to learn.  I think that depends on one's choice versus 9.Bc4 of the Yugoslav attack.  I've heard that the Dragon is often recommended to average players because it features so many thematic ideas.

Before the Endgame the Gods have placed the Opening. 

The thing is that to play chess well no part of the game can be neglected. Many aspiring chessplayers fail to understand this fact.

Perhaps the most important aspect for a student of the game to realise is that his Chess development should be even, that is, his Opening play should be matched by his Middle & Endgame play. It is pointless to play the Opening like a GM only to be let down by poor middle and endgames skills. Therefore my advice is to divide your study time as is neccessary between these three phases of the game so that your overall play is in sync.

Top 

Well, currently I'm trying to limit the amount of opening theory I need by playing reasonably sound but not too forcing openings in order to outplay my opponents in the middle/endgame. But even so I still need to invest quite a bit of time in order to not get into trouble in the opening, as even the more obscure openings have a lot of theory published about them. I think it's a much better approach than that of a friend of mine who plays e.g. the Dragon and the King's Indian and says he basically spends most of his chess study time on these two openings in order to survive (but has invested too much time already to give up on these openings). On the other hand it is interesting to analyse openings, so some people probably do it at least in part because it's enjoyable for them.

Ok, i have learnt my lesson. Wednesday i got totally outplayed on the white side of a dragon and was very lucky to swindle my opponent with knight vs 3 pawns in the ending and get a draw. 

Thats fair enough. I suppose once you reach a certain level then opening knowledge is essential. 

In years gone by I have always had a theoretical edge over opponents, so I've started to turn to the middle and endgames and tried to improve my game there. As a result I am not up to date with opening theory any more. One of the annoying things about having little time to study I suppose.

I always smile at the obsession people have with opening theory. Fortunately for me, I'm at a level where the latest novelties aren't that significant (1703 WCU). I much prefer reading classic middle game and endgame books: The Dvoretsky-Yusupov books are awesome!!

Anyone else with me or am i just a sad little player who likes endings?