An author of opening books advising the study of openings...hmm. I think this whole topic of whether or not to study openings is poorly explained. The question is, how should you spend your study time? Say you have 10 hrs a week for chess study , how is it best spent? The answer is simple, you work on the weakest parts of your game. If in 8/10 of your last loses you were losing by move 8 and the game was over at move 15 then you definitely should look at your openings (for a beginner this may mean opening principles). On the other hand, if most of your games start to unravel in the middlegame or because you blunder material, drilling openings might not help much. IMO the best approach to study is a balanced approach, regularly touching all areas, but with an emphasis on the weakest aspects of your game.
Something on the old discussion on the value of learning openings
Yes, we should definitively work with the weakest aspects of the game. And sometimes this means to get a basic opening repertoire. I don't think that it is bad to learn concrete openings even if you are a beginner, as long as you don't spend too much time learning the openings and making sure that you understand the moves you are learning (instead of just memorizing them).
I don't have any books by Hendriks on openings, only "The Origin of Good Moves" (it is about strategy, taking a historical approach) and "Move First, Think Later" (also about strategy). Did he publish on openings?
I misunderstood. The openings quotations and title "move first..." led me to believe he was an Openings author. My mistake.
Studying opening with the capability of playing for or against specific pawn structure is more important. According to me move order in reaching specific pawn structure is not important but how we deal after that is more important if you want to win games.
I always thought that learning openings is a smart way to improve in chess, and I know that most players and coaches will say that openings are not that relevant for people under 2000 or even 2200 ELO. However, I found in the last book by Willy Hendriks (On the Origin of Good Moves) an interesting statement about learning openings which reflects exactly what I always thought about the value of learning openings for the general chess improvement:
"Throughout the history of chess, people have been warning the improving player about spending too much time studying the openings. And throughout that same history, the majority of players have done otherwise, and most books have dedicated to this subject."
"Rightly so, in my opinion. There is no better way to improve in chess than by studying openings. On the historical as well as on the individual level, the study of openings has been one of the main motors of improvement. "
"The subjects that the literature on chess addressed in the old days are mostly, though not completely, the same as in our days. A lot of research focused on the openings. If we look at some of the books that played a role in our history: Greco's work was a game collection with mainly miniatures, Philidor's l'Analyse was essentially a book on opening theory, likewise its German counterpart the Bilguer, Neumann's collection of games was also organized as a research on openings and even Steinitz's Modern Chess Instructor was essentially a book on openings. Those books often included some pages of general advice, mainly addressing the play in the opening, and there we can find the beginning of positional theory." [...]
"There are several reasons why studying openings is so rewarding, and I want to single out two important ones that are more or less mutually reinforcing. The first one is of didactic nature, and though didactics is actually not what you could call hard science, the idea that practice makes perfect has been a well-established part of all theories on learning. Every game you play offers an opportunity to practice your openings."
"And secondly, those games often lead you into new directions for further study. This feedback relationship between study and practice hardly exists in the endgame (...) and this lack of a direct link to practice also applies to books on the middlegame. Although I think it is useful to become acquainted with the basic theories and vocabulary, reading middlegame books can be compared to reading cookery books without subsequently preparing the recipes. If you want to become a good cook, the preparation is essential. Initially you have to do your best to get a satisfactory result, but once you've mastered the recipe you can later refine or vary on it."
"For the study of chess openings, the situation is much more favourable. Practice constantly gives you the chances to play what you have studied, and gives you feedback for new studies. (...) Analogous to the history of chess you will, in developing your openings, deepen your knowledge of the typical tactics and strategies that belong to the openings you are playing. Concepts you might have learned from a general book on strategy will become meaningful, or maybe your study of an opening will be your first acquaintance with these concepts." (from the book On the Origin of Good Moves by Willy Hendriks, pp. 359-361).
I really recommend this book! This author is already known for his book "Move First, Think Later".