Well, I have seen books such as Kasparov's Opening Repertoire by Leonid Shamkovich & Eric Schiller and Learn from Bobby Fischer's Greatest Games by Eric Schiller from time to time, but do you think it would be fair to take those as reflective of the sort of opening book that USCF usually sells?

I do not think any of those have been revised since 2009.

"... [Modern Chess Openings (15th ed.)] pretends to be everything for everybody, but it isn’t; it pretends to be up-to-date and relevant in all chapters, but it isn’t; it should be a good book, but it isn’t. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2008)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626165820/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen110.pdf

"... For new players, I cannot recommend books that use [an encyclopedic] type of presentation [of opening theory], because the explanatory prose that elaborates typical plans and ideas is usually absent, thus leaving the student without any clear idea why certain moves are played or even preferred over other apparently equivalent moves. ..." - FM Carsten Hansen (2010)

It should perhaps be mentioned that FCO is not really like MCO and NCO.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140626173432/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen128.pdf

Yep, unless the openings you play are some of the more theoretical ones, in which case you may have to start learning a little here and there as you enter the 1800's; but no need to go crazy.

"It is important for club players to build up a suitable opening repertoire. ..." - GM Artur Yusupov (2010)

Is there a reason to assume a book on the opening is not a quality book?

If appropriate opening books are easier to sell than inappropriate opening books, then doesn't that provide writers and sellers with some motivation to prefer appropriate opening books over inappropriate opening books?

I think openings matter to the point where you'd like to practice the main lines so you have a good base for the future if you so choose to desire to become expert and beyond but I don't see anything wrong with experimenting every once in a while though I do firmly believe that just randomly making moves doesn't help much if you are not already a strong player.  I think, regardless of level, one should learn some basic openings and stick to them.  Randomly making innocuous little pawn moves, in the beginning, doesn't help your chess intuition if you are barely starting to learn how to play and around 1000 or below.  I know because it didn't help me...  Part of the fun of chess I guess is playing against the queens gambits and taking the free pawn and trying to see if you can wing it and keep that free pawn!  Of course, I don't play that away against the queen's gambit, it just seems that everyone I get paired with plays that way, so I learn new modern ways for people to attempt to take that pawn and keep it.  Sometimes I win the game outright, sometimes I blunder and lose the game, but it's all in the process of learning.

f6 isn't usually a move that should be played by black, but at the same time, if black plays it, he is not immediately losing, as someone pointed out.  But what I am saying is if you make moves like that at the start of the game you are not applying basic chess principles.  One should learn at the start, why f6 isn't a good way to defend the pawn on e5 after an e4 e5 opening, and one should learn the way a general game occurs after e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4.  They really shouldn't be concerned with why the moves are being made past the part where white is trying to attack the weak f7 square and the weak pawn on e5.  Black is ultimately trying to play d5 in this position so that he can equalize the game, and white is trying to prevent this.  The reason for that is simple. d5 is the best place for black to counterstrike, simply because that is the place where he can get most of his control.  Just count the pieces that are pointing there in that opening.  That is why in some openings like the maroczy bind white will use his pawns to prevent black from playing d5, though such a move is not without its consequences.  Part of learning chess is learning that when you try and gain something you lose a little somewhere else.  It's up to the chess player to make the correct decision in creating more gains than losses in a position, especially in the area of the board where it matters.  

Truth be told, a beginner at chess will look at what I just said, and most likely, say, "Bah, I don't need to control d5 as black in that opening.  I can just play whatever I want."  I know this because I am kind of teaching a guy how to get better at chess by telling him what he is doing wrong and often times he does not listen to what I say or even any of us.  There are three of us telling him stuff, and he doesn't listen.

Maybe it's just him though, as I am no teacher, and this is actually the first person I have attempted to teach.  I teach him by playing him and telling him why the move he just made was a bad move.  He doesn't study on his own so unless we start playing a whole lot more I don't think he will ever improve.  If he listened to what we said maybe we'd start to play more interesting games.

In a nutshell, I think openings should be studied at all levels, especially at the beginner level because if all you do is play random moves you aren't going to learn as much as you would if you knew the basic ideas on the most basic Italian type openings, like why don't you generally play f6 as black to defend the pawn on e5 that is being attacked by the knight, etc.  Don't get me wrong a lot of it has to do with learning tactics.  I personally need to learn more tactics to get better at this juncture of my chess training.  But, I think it is a mistake to just play random moves all the time without really studying basic chess principles.  Maybe not necessarily exactly opening lines, but basic chess principles.  The problem is I never heard of a book that talks about what I just said, so you pretty much almost have to study at least some basic opening lines to learn the basic ideas behind the openings, perhaps with a guide.  Two books that are good are FCO (Fundamental Chess Openings) and Reuben Fine's book on openings, but I think it is said somewhere that Reuben Fine's book is outdated and FCO should be used instead, but I gleaned different nuggets from both books.  So, really, you, and only you, should be the ultimate factor in what books you decide to pay money for.  Another source would be the opening encyclopedia if you have the money, though I didn't find that to be as useful as the other two at my level because the opening encyclopedia is just an index of games categorized by opening type.  I can't remember if there are notes on some of the games or not...

<The_Chin> (on post #41) - right. A little of everything...

When a player is rated around 1500, give or take, it's probably useful to become familiar with the main lines of most openings, 3-4 moves deep (I'm still discovering the names of openings - only this last year I learned what a Bogo-Indian was - I really had no idea). You want to be able to at least recognize the names of most openings, so that you can understand what others are talking about, on the most basic level.

And then, again when a player is rated 1700 or 1450, it's not too bad to study some special variation deeply - not because you hope to actually play it against someone of your level (which may or may not happen) - but just for the pleasure of studying it, seeing some nice tactics or positional ideas etc. 

Study it in order to learn the chess inside it, and maybe draw ideas and conclusions that can become useful in other types of positions (such as - the knight on d5 in the Sicilian, and then you play white against a King's Indian, and can sometimes plant a knight on d5 in THAT opening late in the middle game, for example after Ne6 and dxe6 - you get the idea).

Some people obsess about the openings, or show unusual erudition about that phase of the game, and are only rated 1400, if that - you got to respect it that they really like that part of the game - and also to recognize it, that it won't ever make them stronger than 1400...

Some people ENJOY studying the openings because it comes easier to them, but don't really want to face the prospect of working on (say) endgames, midgame strategy, typical plans, tactics (mostly) etc. - maybe they don't find that type of work quite as enjoyable. On one hand, it's good to do what you enjoy and the hell with the results (not everyone must care about becoming a 1800 rated player, or a master etc.); on the other hand, one can say that it's like someone who dropped a coin in the dark, but looks for it under a lamppost because it's more comfortable to look for it there (there is light, but the coin is of course elsewhere). 

Not sure about <2000 far from there, but <1800 players should definetely focus mainly on tactics, stamina and calculation. I have won lost positions and lost a won positions just because of calculation failure or just was too tired regardles of the openings.

That's the problem with removing 1 sentence of my post then commenting on it, it's so frivolous and out of context you've even forgotten you've done it yourself. Re-read #32 this is where you make that suggestion. (I'm not saying you believe, it, I realize it's just a throw away hypothetical.)

---

I haven't read your other most recent replies. Giving your knee jerk thoughts to single sentences without context is not a conversation, and it's asking me to do all the work, carrying both sides of the conversation, especially when (apparently) you can't even recall what you've said.

unorthodox chessopenings is a good one by schiller

      Think the "mafia defense" would be hard to throughly study and perfect.

Worked well for me so far. 

I stand corrected.  I'm glad your hear.  Since I am teaching two people how to play chess, I will take a peak at the exploring chess openings books, because maybe they may present a better approach to opening choice than me for a beginner.  I play the Sicilian, and I am pretty sure that is not an opening for a beginner.  Nor is Petrov's Defense, as I used to play that opening before it was suggested I play the Sicilian.  A new book can't hurt my chess can't it .  At least I'll get to see what I missed out on when I was learning how to play chess 16 years ago.  Also, I am probably not even a 1400 player yet, so maybe I was reading books too advanced for me!  We shall see!