What Mr. E.T. said about "bookworms" in regular chess is very true, but I don't agree with his whole article completely.

1) It's not only about openings, middlegame strategies/tactics/patterns and endgames can be studied and learned similar way too, little difference is there is some creativity required mostly in combining and taking advantage of those patterns.
2) But I don't see any real difference in Gothic chess here. Of course what Mr. Trice wrote is always true until some chess variant becomes more popular, not many masters games are available and the area is not covered by computer programs with huge books yet. But then, some point will be reached when all this starts again.
3) There were some tries to avoid book openings, let's mention Fisher Random Chess here. But different starting positions don't give always, in fact they give almost never, the same chances for both parties. Just look at differences between Capablanca and Gothic chess starting positions, with same pieces Capablanca setup leads to huge advantage for the starting player, as Mr.Trice described on the way to his patent for Gothic Chess.

So, I don't see any real solution here. Of course, one could always play some new chess variant where such book knowledge is not present yet. But again, looking at some top rated players and their repertoire can substitute the books absence or accessibility and give you some advantage over your opponents.
But I think, when you play for fun, without looking for some breakthroughs, money and fame, you can have it even against those "bookworms" here and there, you can sometimes suprise them as their memorized repertoire cannot cover the whole area. But as I mentioned in 1), it's not only about openings... And of course, even when you lose, you can gain something good, at least you had some brain training etc.
And those looking for fame, tourney wins, money, well the only way is to study and play and study and play again if you think it's worth it and/or you really like the game.

Just my opinion.