How long to read an opening book?

Browse the books quoted.  You will find  the  idea expressed that opening study ,that is, the study of opening variations,  is not the best use of the amateur chessplayer's time. Even Jusupov,which again, you provide one thing he said but not another. Said: "concrete opening study is not for the amateur."  Players    should   look at games of their chosen opening(which I believe all would agree on).  It is the detailed study of the opening variations they warn against.  I gave numerous personal examples above.  The example the expert beating a class player happens in tournaments every day.  Yes, the expert was outplayed in the opening, but won the game anyway.  Books that claim a certain system will win are misleading at best.  This could be a subject for a whole blog.  So what should a beginner do?  Learn the principles of good opening play.  Follow those principles,  Realize they are training wheels and will one day be removed.  But follow them now.

They are amazing books.

Previously, you described yourself as giving titles. Is there a quote in your previous notes?

Yes, from Jusupov who also said that concrete opening study is not for the amateur.

So, you do not have a quote of someone expressing disapproval of the idea of an amateur playing over some games in a book written with the primary intention of helping the reader to get a feel for an opening?

Haven't seen that quote, but I have seen this:

Question: "... Mr Yusupov, I am currently an amateur (USCF rating 1500). … Should a player at my level even have an opening repertoire?"

GM Yusupov: "Why not have a repertoire? ... I would recommend you to stay with an opening you like and not care about what other people think! It is important to enjoy chess and to get positions we enjoy playing, more than maybe getting an advantage. And yes, stay out of the concrete opening theory for now."

http://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/QandAwithArturYusupovQualityChessAugust2013.pdf

Sounds to me as though GM Yusupov approved of some sort of work on specific openings for the amateur 1500 player.

Perhaps the sort of nonconcrete work that Yusupov had in mind for the amateur 1500 player? The sort of work on openings that can be aided by books with illustrative games?

"... 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)

Are those the only sorts of opening book available?

Aren't beginners routinely encouraged to play over illustrative games? What would be wrong with playing over illustrative games in order to "create a simple, very basic, but solid opening repertoire"?

https://www.chess.com/article/view/how-to-start-out-in-chess

Apparently you have not read anything I said.  You determined to put up walls of prose, quoting me over and over, which only confuses people. For example, look at the passage on quoted saying beginner players should look at games.  The worse thing someone learning chess can do is start an opening study while he is still moving pieces to undefended squares, not    moving    attacked pieces, not completing exchanges.

It might be of interest to look at the table of contents of A COMPLETE CHESS COURSE by Antonio Gude.

http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/A_Complete_Chess_Course.pdf

The purpose of this thread is to help people who just learned to play.  Your suggestions to read all these books(however well-intentioned it might be), just confuses beginners.  They have to learn how not to put a piece in take first.

When did you get the authority to decide the purpose of a thread?

Where, in this thread, do you see a suggestion by me "to read all these books"?

Isn't that a process that, for many, takes place gradually over time?

Spongy, please stop just filling the page.

You sometimes make comments that seem to me to require individual attention.

Putting pages of prose after prose serves no purpose.

What I really wonder,Spongy, is have you read any of tbese books you suggest beginning players read?