wrote:
As I said elsewhere, the problem with this idea is that computer
opening books are made by humans, not by computers. If you assume
that computers are unable to play the opening well, you're also
assuming that they're unable to generate good opening books.


I mean that the computer can number crunch
way in advance (left on overnight, etc.), and find the
best opening books, looking ahead many more moves
than they normally would in regular play. They could
then store these opening moves as a database for
each Fischer random position, and thus have
a time advantage during the openings. The human
would take much more time analyzing an opening position
for perhaps the first time.


Your point is well taken, provided there is no serious, organized
and competent human interest to critically review and counter such
computer-generated opening theory. Basically, it is an empirical
and open-ended question. Time will tell...

P.S. I have never come across any published reference regarding
GMs' assessments of how well powerful computers play their first
10 moves or so in Chess960! 8)