How long to read an opening book?

How long does it to take you to read an opening book and play the opening well? What study strategies do you use? 

I don’t think that I have ever done that.

There are a variety of attitudes towards reading an opening book. Hugh Patterson wrote (2015), "Because there are so many variations presented in these books [on various openings], many players try to skim through them. Don't do it. Play through every single example no matter how long it takes."

http://chessimprover.com/how-to-read-a-chess-book/

Sometimes, to percieve a person's attitude, one can do a little reading between the lines. In 2014, GM David Smerdon wrote, "I recently took a train from Amsterdam to the quaint little Belgium town of Bruges. Looking for a book to keep me occupied for the four hour ride, I remembered ... Richard Pert’s Playing the Trompowsky ... And indeed, I was able to read the whole book, cover to cover, during the ride; ... It’s only 260 pages ... I decided to reread the book on the four hour return journey to Amsterdam. ..." That is about 1.08 pages per minute.

http://www.chess.com/article/view/review-playing-the-trompowsky

(In case anyone is wondering, the movie, In Bruges, was about six years earlier.)

Once one has chosen openings, I think that there is wide agreement that the way to start is by playing over sample games. Some of us think that it can be useful to use books like First Steps: 1 e4 e5 and First Steps: Queen's Gambit
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7790.pdf

https://chesscafe.com/book-reviews/first-steps-1-e4-e5-by-john-emms/
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7652.pdf
as sources of games with explanations intended for those just starting to learn about an opening. Be sure to try to use the openings in games in between sessions of learning. Most of the time, one faces a position with no knowledge of a specific move indicated in a book. One has to accept that as part of chess, and think of opening knowledge as a sometimes helpful aid. After a game, it makes sense to try to look up the moves in a book and see if it has some indication of how one might have played better in the opening. Many opening books are part explanation and part reference material. The reference material is included in the text with the idea that one mostly skips it on a first reading, and looks at an individual item when it applies to a game that one has just played. Resist the temptation to try to turn a book into a mass memorization project. There are many important subjects that one should not neglect because of too much time on opening study.
"... If the book contains illustrative games, it is worth playing these over first ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)
"... the average player only needs to know a limited amount about the openings he plays. Providing he understands the main aims of the opening, a few typical plans and a handful of basic variations, that is enough. ..." - FM Steve Giddins (2008)
"... Everyman Chess has started a new series aimed at those who want to understand the basics of an opening, i.e., the not-yet-so-strong players. ... I imagine [there] will be a long series based on the premise of bringing the basic ideas of an opening to the reader through plenty of introductory text, game annotations, hints, plans and much more. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2002)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627055734/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen38.pdf
"The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details, after playing your games it is good to look up the line." - GM Nigel Davies (2005)
"... Review each of your games, identifying opening (and other) mistakes with the goal of not repeatedly making the same mistake. ... It is especially critical not to continually fall into opening traps – or even lines that result in difficult positions ..." - NM Dan Heisman (2007)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140627062646/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman81.pdf

"... I think people tend to be afraid of the main lines. They think: ... sure, I'm going to take up (say) 5 Bg5 against the Semi-Slav, once I've got time and learned it properly. ... My advice is - don't bother. The more you learn anyway, the more you'll recognize how little you know. ... 5 Bg5 is a good move - get it on the board, get ready to fight, and see what happens.
Sure, there will come a time, whether on move two or move twenty, when your knowledge of theory runs out and you have to decide what to do on your own. ... sometimes you will leave theory first, sometimes your opponent. Nothing will stop this happening. It happens in every well-contested GM game at some point, usually a very significant point. This is a part of the game: an important part, something you have to get better at. ... to improve you have to challenge yourself; ..." - IM John Cox (2006)

I think that there is a very natural desire to want to have a good understanding of an opening before playing it, but, increasingly, I get the feeling that that is generally not practical. There seems to be a widespread belief that one should be content with what one gets from illustrative games, start using an opening in one's own games, and gradually improve one's knowledge and understanding from game to game.

"... For inexperienced players, I think the model that bases opening discussions on more or less complete games that are fully annotated, though with a main focus on the opening and early middlegame, is the ideal. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)

I don't know if anyone plays through every variation and reads opening books from cover to cover. They are like encyclopedias in that way. You can look up the line after you lose the game and learn for the next game as necessary.

In Play 1. e4 e5! by Nigel Davies, Davies says the following. "The way I suggest you study this book is to play through the main games once, relatively quickly, and then start playing the variation in actual games. Playing an opening in real games is of vital importance - without this kind of live practice it is impossible to get a 'feel' for the kind of game it leads to. There is time enough later for involvement with the details; after playing your games it is good to look up the line."

thats hilarious

and exactly wat i was thinking.    too many variations within variations within variations (etc) . . . i'am happy and grateful and thankful for vid's (one picture is worth 1000 words) 

My goal is to learn one opening line a week. But I may only study 2 opening schemes a month. I’ll see how it goes. I’m writing visual diagrams taking notes, and  asking questions and then answering them in my notebook. 

This was touched on in earlier posts, but I think most of these opening manuals are more of a reference tool. Focus on the main strategies presented and sample games when learning the opening. Then practice the opening a lot against a computer or in blitz and check your play and opponents play against what's in the theory part of these books. Keeping notes and creating visuals like you said is a great idea too. Gotta respect that kind of dedication.

First, as many grandmasters have said, that it is a waste for players below IM level to study opening theory. why do they say this.  In my own experience, I  used to memorize opening lines, out play (when I was 1400) masters, experts, and players above my rating, only to lose in the middlegame.  A little story.  There is a variation in tne Queen's Indian Defense where White loses a piece.  Sometimes, even a grandmaster falls into the variation.  Somehow a piece down against strong players they win anyway.  The lesson is that there are too many elements to chess to be working on opening variations.

That said, I like Yemolinski's approach to learning an opening. He suggests playing whatever ideas you want and learning from mistakes. Only consult an opening book after you have played the opening and have developed a feel for it.  I think that gambit openings are an exception.  Lines must be memorized.  It always amazed me when a walked by a board and saw a strong player a piece down in the opening against a class.  I would have resigned.  The expert played on.  The next time I looked, the class player sat there  red faced, staring at a mate in two he could not stop.  I am always shocked when I hear some player instructing an expert on the opening, and the expert honest admitting thst he did noit know the opening variation at all.  Yet the expert won in the middle game from an inferior position.

If openings  were so important "zuck the book" would have crushed   Fischer every game.  

"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)

Having a suitable opening system is not the same thing as studying opening variations.  As I mentioned above, GM Yermolinksi suggest getting a feel for the opening by playing it.  I could name numerous grandmasters, such as Rowson, who warn players not to study the opening.  Read my post above, Spongy, to see reasons why.  Zuck the book knew opening better than Bobby Fischer.  Who do you think won the most games.

Some books seem to me to have been written with the primary intention of helping the reader to get a feel for an opening. I have not seen any Yermolinsky or Rowson quote that seems to me to express disapproval of the idea of an amateur playing over some games in such a book.

Spongy, you are tallking about two different things.  Tell me how you would define an opening study? The poster is talking about reading an opening book, to learn variations. 

It seems to me to be uncertain as to what any one person would mean by those two words in isolation. I have no interest in trying to tell people how to use those words.

It seems to me to be worthwhile to mention the GM John Nunn attitude:

"... I feel that the main reasons to buy an opening book are to give a good overview of the opening, and to explain general plans and ideas. ..." - GM John Nunn (2006)

Yermolinski says in The R oad to Chess Improvement everything I just said above.  Rowson gives the same reasons not to study openings in Chess for Zebras and goes on to point out the most important thing to study: which is the development of skill, particular skills in chess.  Tumakov also explains tnat amateur chess involves many more important skills to learn than opening theory. 

Also, haven’t seen a Tukmakov quote expressing such disapproval.

I just gave two titles.