There are NOT any Books on FRC Opening.............

[Chessqueen]

Can a Strong Player like Larry Kaufman take a look at most of the games played here http://ccrl.chessdom.com/ccrl/404FRC/ and write a book on how to properly open a FRC game. I believe a book of this nature since it will be the only so far will be a good seller. Larry this book is an excellent Book https://www.chess.com/article/view/gm-l ... white-book

[BrendanJNorman]

The principles of opening play remain the same, regardless of how the pieces are shuffled.

Any book on opening strategy will be useful...because they'll say "develop your pieces, control the center, protect your king".

The point of FRC is that there IS no memorizable theory...if you want an "opening repertoire" for FRC, just stick to classical chess.

[Nordlandia]

Classical chess is generally often repetitious than FRC. In classical chess, often the same openings are played repeatedly. In FRC this is not the case because there is litterly no theory and people play from move 1.

[Modern Times]

An opening book for chess960 is the antithesis of everything chess960 is about. I hope never to see one.

[lkaufman]

Can a Strong Player like Larry Kaufman take a look at most of the games played here http://ccrl.chessdom.com/ccrl/404FRC/ and write a book on how to properly open a FRC game. I believe a book of this nature since it will be the only so far will be a good seller. Larry this book is an excellent Book https://www.chess.com/article/view/gm-l ... white-book

Eventually we'll learn new principles that apply to FRC beyond those that apply to normal chess, and once the game becomes a bit more established and these new principles are discovered I might write such a book. I don't think there would be a lot of interest in just a short analysis of each of the 960 positions, after all anyone with Stockfish or Komodo can do that on their home computer. The tradeoffs between space, development, material, and center control probably vary from position to position, and there should be some new general rules to cover these. I'll need a lot more personal experience with FRC before I'd try anything like this.

[Dann Corbit]

Before long, there will be named openings for FRC, just like regular chess.
The inventors imagined that FRC would favor humans, giving them a better chance against the machine.
I think the opposite is true.

The existing data could already be used to compile openings. Simple statistical evaluation based on both human and computer games. They just would not have names.

[jp]

The inventors imagined that FRC would favor humans, giving them a better chance against the machine.

That's not true. They (or he, Fischer) didn't care about machines.
It's certainly not true (of non-inventors) now. Top players have no interest in playing machines.

[Dann Corbit]

The inventors imagined that FRC would favor humans, giving them a better chance against the machine.

That's not true. They (or he, Fischer) didn't care about machines.
It's certainly not true (of non-inventors) now. Top players have no interest in playing machines.

"I don't know when, but I think we are approaching that [the end of chess] very rapidly. I think we need a change in the rules of chess. For example, I think it would be a good idea to shuffle the first row of the pieces by computer ... and this way you will get rid of all the theory. One reason that computers are strong in chess is that they have access to enormous theory [...] I think if you can turn off the computer's book, which I've done when I've played the computer, they are still rather weak, at least at the opening part of the game, so I think this would be a good improvement, and also just for humans. It is much better, I think, because chess is becoming more and more simply memorization, because the power of memorization is so tremendous in chess now. Theory is so advanced, it used to be theory to maybe 10 or 15 moves, 18 moves; now, theory is going to 30 moves, 40 moves. I think I saw one game in Informator, the Yugoslav chess publication, where they give an N [theoretical novelty] to a new move, and I recall this new move was around move 50. [...] I think it is true, we are coming to the end of the history of chess with the present rules, but I don't say we have to do away with the present rules. I mean, people can still play, but I think it's time for those who want to start playing on new rules that I think are better." — Fischer (September 1, 1992)

[Spliffjiffer]

i play chess now for around 25 years online or reality vs humans and inspite of learning much about theory i just play what i think...not that im an idiot who cannot memorize things but i dont like to do so...imo chess doesnt die because of theory or whatever as long we have fun with playing eachother !?

[lkaufman]

The inventors imagined that FRC would favor humans, giving them a better chance against the machine.

That's not true. They (or he, Fischer) didn't care about machines.
It's certainly not true (of non-inventors) now. Top players have no interest in playing machines.

"I don't know when, but I think we are approaching that [the end of chess] very rapidly. I think we need a change in the rules of chess. For example, I think it would be a good idea to shuffle the first row of the pieces by computer ... and this way you will get rid of all the theory. One reason that computers are strong in chess is that they have access to enormous theory [...] I think if you can turn off the computer's book, which I've done when I've played the computer, they are still rather weak, at least at the opening part of the game, so I think this would be a good improvement, and also just for humans. It is much better, I think, because chess is becoming more and more simply memorization, because the power of memorization is so tremendous in chess now. Theory is so advanced, it used to be theory to maybe 10 or 15 moves, 18 moves; now, theory is going to 30 moves, 40 moves. I think I saw one game in Informator, the Yugoslav chess publication, where they give an N [theoretical novelty] to a new move, and I recall this new move was around move 50. [...] I think it is true, we are coming to the end of the history of chess with the present rules, but I don't say we have to do away with the present rules. I mean, people can still play, but I think it's time for those who want to start playing on new rules that I think are better." — Fischer (September 1, 1992)

When Fischer wrote that, commercially available engines were well below his strength in slow games, so perhaps he would have scored better in FRC vs. top engines than in normal chess where they had deep opening books, although even then he might have done better in normal chess just by playing nonbook moves early. Now it is totally clear that FRC favors the engine. In normal chess Carlsen might get an occasional draw with White vs. top engines, in FRC probably he wouldn't draw one in a hundred. We've already played enough handicap games to say that the human needs something like a pawn larger handicap in FRC than in normal chess to balance the chances.