Which is the first?

Friend, I want to ask you something, how much the opening take part in our successful attack. Sometime I feel it is useless to memorize many opening when the opponent didn't care about it instead of tactic. So, which is the first to be studied, opening or tactic?

tactics --> standard endgames --> openings

agree with #2

What do you call standart endgames?

All 3 and 4 men endgames. Some of the basic 5 and 6 men endgames.

#2 makes sense for seriousness, but there are tactical ideas in some openings, for example as well as endgame ideas in openings so it can be well integrated.

My memory is atrocious. I can't memorize and study openings. So very little of them stick to my mind. There are 1500s with more opening theory in their little finger than in my entire repertoire.

My tactical calculation is completely inferior. There are 1500s with higher tactical ratings than me.

Same with endgame theory.

Yet I'm 500 points ahead.

This means that not only is there another factor, another ingredient, a whole another aspect to a chess move that isn't being discussed here...

...but it's a dynamic to chess that must trump all of the aforementioned.

When I feel the "chess spirit" I make videos on what I learn so that I can recall the lessons later.

If you feel like there is another aspect to chess that's at the tip of your fingers but nobody is quite addressing directly, there might be a few videos for you to check out here:

www.youtube.com/channel/UCZgxuBnBBxfoZiSpyohz_Dg