studying Endgame first, or Openings.

If a person does not claim to know what a beginner needs, is it reasonable to expect that person to agree (or disagree) with the statement of someone else about what a beginner needs?

At least 27 minutes so far without a produced sentence. I guess it is going to be awhile. By the way, when did this thread get moved to Chess Mentor?

  Authority means nothing. Spongey was right: it depends on the person playing chess. 

 Ready when all the lines are understood.

"... Authority means nothing. ..." - troy7915

I disagree. First study in detail, then play.

 Oops, whete’d It go? I was responding to the post containing Short’s advice.

Sorry, here is the (Davies) quote again:

"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)

Davies, right, not Short.

I hope that you will forgive me for tossing out one more quote. I like it, but I do not often encounter a situation when it seems like it might be appropriate.

"... 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’d say, always take the main lines! Along with the sidelines as possible responses, but from your point of view, always the most complicated lines. 

  It doesn’t matter if you or your opponent deviates, you learn the biggest number of ideas from studying the main lines, which then could, perhaps be applied even if one player deviates. Even if not, it gives you an idea what to look for, how to think.

And in some openings, like KID, what is sideline now has been main line a decade ago, so there’s no way to avoid studying a lot of lines. Ruy Lopez, for instance, shouldn’t be avoided with a...Scotch! Always the most complicated openings, not just lines.

"Alekhine advised beginners not to play the Spanish game. We also recommend you get some experience first by playing relatively simple openings - the Scotch and Italian games - and only then move on to the Spanish one." - Journey to the Chess Kingdom by Yuri Averbakh and Mikhail Beilin

"... I want to talk about how to build an opening repertoire that matches your rating goals in chess. ... If your goals in chess are relatively modest, (i.e- no higher than 2200), you can play many less conventional openings and get away with it. ... [If your goals are to get up to 1800, pick] openings based on enjoyment. ... You can play stuff that’s completely unsound because the large majority of sub 2000 players won’t be able to take advantage of your dubious opening choices. ..." - IM Greg Shahade (2012)

http://www.uschess.org/content/view/11634/658

I was talking of a player who wants the highest of the highest, not one who limits themselves to 2200 or 1800 bar...

The point was, why set limitations, be that in Elo points or actual chess strength?

"... There is no doubt in my mind that if you really want to test the Sicilian then you have to play the main lines of the Open Sicilian. The problem is that there are just so many of them ... and keeping up with developments in all of them is a substantial task. ... as you become older, with other demands on your time (family, job, etc.) then it becomes more and more difficult to keep up with everything. At this stage it may make sense to reduce your theoretical overhead by adopting one of the 'lesser' lines against the Sicilian: 2 c3, or the Closed Sicilian, or lines with Bb5. ..." - GM John Nunn in part of a 2005 book where he discussed a 1994 game in which he had played 2 c3.

Well, it takes sacrifices to do the right thing, and one can make ends meet. The problems appear when one wants more than the bare necessities and obtain mastery in chess. Like they want also to go on dates, hook up, go to the movies, escape in little vacations and so on, start a family ( being insecure in themselves), have kids then providing for them, all that.

 But if one is clear about their objective, they can study the hardest lines in the greatest detail. True, the same lines offer a new understanding each time they’re being looked at, which is why this is a permanent ‘job’. 

  So the problem may be a lack of clarity about one’s future. 

By the way, if one plays the Sicilian as Black, learning 2. c3, or the Moscow for that matter—but not necessarily Rossolimo—are inevitable, just not with the white pieces. 

  After all, speaking against adopting the Alapin as White, its main idea, while logical and constructive, fails terribly—in itself—which is obtaining the ideal center.

It is the creation of a dreamy idealist, which a logical pragmatic can refute it. And in fact, having failed in its main concept, the only way to gain an advantage is to offer a pawn sacrifice, sometimes even two ( three doesn’t count, as then White will regain at least one back), in order to get a developmental advantage, which is the main line for many decades now.

 It’s just a matter of knowing what to play with what colors and when certain sidelines are avoidable and when they are not.

So there is no problem for one who does not want to obtain the troy7915 notion of mastery in chess?