Thanks Michael-G for that good explanation. Really liked that "The deep meaning  of most the opening moves is at the middlegame and several characteristics of t middlegame can only be understood if linked with the endgame". Thanks

Regarding the parhams!! I too believed that its not so good for white to bring his queen out early

Yes , there are a lot that try to sell DVDs and to do that they are ready to support any nonsense they can.How many opening DVDs are out there and how many middlegame or endgames ones?All this industry sells by trying to convince ignorants thet openings are more important than endgames.How else wil they sell?What will they say?

 Believe them if you like.Your Loss.

It's a doomed effort to try to convince beginners that they lose their time when they study openings.From 100 there is only 1 that will understand.I am quite sure that 1 already did.The rest of you , believe Gustafson.

Actually, I passed 1500 at Chicago. Getting my best rating in my life. With my study time about equally divided between opening ideas (not lines, btw, I tend to go away from the "book" lines by move 4 or 5), middle game planning, endgames and tactic training. I'm working with an IM coach who is aware of, and approves of the way I spend my time studying. 

And, btw, I love Capa. I'm working through a collection of his 1. d4 games currently. But just because he's a great chess player doens't mean he knows a thing about educating others. Anymore than the fact that I'm a pretty darn good teacher (in a non-chess related field) makes me a great chess player.

Yes! please joeydrive send me an invite! Will help me know more openings too!

So according to what you say , if you had the chance to have Capablanca for coach you would refuse and you would keep the IM that says what you want to hear just to take your money(because if he said you do nonsense all these years, you would fire him) 

Really? LOL!!!

I love these discussions , they really make me laugh a lot.Some of you are really hilarious.

So, Michael-G, if you're such an expert at teaching adults, how many class-D adult students have you turned into masters?

My guess is about the same number as most every other instructor out there -- none.

It's amazing how many chess instructors out there are willing to say how adults should study chess, but who in practice have exceedingly pedestrian results from their adult students.

However, I'm quite happy with the results I've had, going with someone who believes chess should be studied holistically:

 And even if these result are an aberration, or if they're not sustainable, I do know that I enjoy the game of chess much more today than I did 7 months ago because I understand all phases of the game a little better.

Kids are not adults. Adults are not kids. Educational methods which work well for one tend to not work nearly as well, or often at all, for the other. Differences between the two range from the easily observable, such as linguistic accuracy, to the rather subtle, such as adults having significantly more diverse experiential backgrounds.

In most fields, children tend to show a much faster initial learning curve than adults due to a much greater rate at forming new neural connections in children brains compared to adults.

Comparing results between kids and adults is interesting, but using results that work well on kids as a measuring stick for what should work well for adults without empirical evidence to support the theory is misguided. Decades of research demonstrates significant differences between the child and adult learner. These differences are often profound.

I am talking about understanding.If to a kid openings are useless to understand chess how can be useful to an adult?

When Capablanca said that endgames should be studied first he did no discrimination between adults and kids.In fact in our club we have reached the conclusion  that endgames are far more easier for adults while openings are far more easier for kids, as they need memorising skills that most of the times adults don't have.Besides Capablanca , other great teachers and players like Nezhmetdinov , Averbach , Botvinnik  specifically said that the beginner should focus on endgame.

          Endgame is the basis of chess understanding for either kids , young  or elders.I know and I understand why you don't like that truth but unfortunately it is the truth.

          But don't listen to me and keep studying openings.You know , I don't get paid every time someone studies endgames so I couldn't care less if you lose your time  and if one day you will realise after many lost years.I did lose 4 years myself before "waking up".I wish you to be luckier.

Because adults do not build understanding of their world in the same way a kid does.

That Capablanca didn't discriminate between adults and kids simply shows he didn't know much about how people learn.

The problem with taking what great players say without any supporting research is none of them were ever adult novices. They are taking how they learned the game as kids (and in Botvinnik's case, how he taught it to kids) and trying to apply those same methods to adults.

As for the rest, I am not advocating for only studying openings. I'm advocating for adults approaching the game holistically. My only point in contention with you is that you seem to think child prodigies have something to say about how adult novices should approach learning a field.

Without wishing to rehash arguments on this never-ending debate (which is too often led through a narrow "black or white" perpective), I'd like to mention that opening study is also strongly linked to confidence, especially for adult beginners : many adults need their 'opening fix' simply to feel comfort into thinking they won't be blown off the board in the first dozen moves. 

In this case, of course, learning more and more lines won't really help, but it may be important as a transitory phase.

Confident players are often not that worried about their openings. They know their opponent is probably no opening god himself and they're confident in their ability to find good-enough moves by using general opening principles, checking for safety and threats, and taking into account what their opponent is trying to do.