Chess "principles", axioms or theorems

In physics, there are principles. principle of least action in variational formulation (maybe need translation in English), as a corrolary to physical laws. I don't recall the details, but I think it was related potential energy, conservation of total energy, and entropy (there is friction, or heat goes from hot to cold).

What is really axiomatic in physics. There exist a universe that can be tested reproducibly, and that sensory measures can be used to express that, and such measures, can in turn be expressed as mathematical equations, with some measurable bound on certainty of the values entering those equations as constants, and also on the variables under evolution (if time dependent variable). Empiricism is the axiom here. minimalist. everyone with enough logic can end up agreeing with how they feed the laws of physics. Given that empirical axiom, the laws of physics become theorems. and so would the principle of least action.

Are there other principles in science, which might not be a theorem (i.e. a pair of condition and consequence, where condition can be tested, not needed to be taken as axiom).

Sometimes some people create axioms to get the theorems they want. And later, some other people, find out that these new axioms, could actually be deduced from others already used in mathematics for example. Then that axiom is more like a theorem. There is nothing preventing anyone from keeping it as an axiom, whether deducible, it is also compatible, and probably more useful than its logical antecedent (probably more abstract, and unreadable).

Where am i going? So that axiom is now theorem, there is no need to make another leap of faith, if its container was already accepted. I guess acceptation is a better term than belief, which is now always used with the intention to minimize the amount of statements to be taken as true without proof.

asking the ether, anybody knows of principles which can't be deduced from others? that act like axiom. entrants to the science where they are used.

Occams' razor. is that a principle? It is an aesthetical choice, often best used in the wheel of science which is dynamic, so even if used in error, our small brain prefer to chop the complex reality that way, until empirical data suggest otherwise.

What about chess? Well, a recent thread that made me spill over right here, had its first post listing statements presented as principles. And I think that while some chess people do restrict their use of that word to principles that can be deduced from more elementary statements (down or up to the legal rules of chess, which are the axioms, not discussion here).

Some writers and teachers will make a difference and use terms as rules of thumbs (ROT). Because with increasing knowledge or exploration of chess position by all players (including the best, and recorded ones), have started poking holes in those rules of action (do this. never do that), also called protocols of behaviour, basically move selection rules that seem disconnected to the position content. Possible phase caveats, like at opening, follow these, imperative and not to be discussed. Other synonyms, guidelines. to make room for the occasional exception in the life of the guideline recipient. Like most of your games.

Is that what makes them principle. Like In theory, this should happen, but then in practice, you might see other things.
In principle, ....

I don't know. finally. But I always prefer theorems to axioms. And it seems that making such distinction (with other words, equivalent), might allow progress in how to apply those guidelines correctly. by focussing on the conditions to measure the most objectively, without expert to newbie uni-directional communication. A discussion, where the teacher is actually sharing not dictating, acknowledging the ability of the listener to make the same reasoning and critically conclude the same way.

As long as the axiomatic attitude is attached to chess "principles" as per that thread (and many others, i don't want to single out that op), the divination and waste of listener critical thinking will keep preventing progress of chess theory as a learning tool. So, even if the impatient student wants to win some games soon, the teacher should not fall into the divine source trap. The fun of chess is about applying logic of limited set of rules and then winning. not winning at any price. or is it?

Setting learning ground rules that principles are not secrets from those who know, but rationally attainable things, with need for evaluation of their condition criterion, that is also of any bodies ability, as long as logic is valued. Some people thing that logic and rational thinking have nothing to do with intuition. Intuition feeds logic. logics filters intuition. They work hand in hand. hypotheses are never born of logic. they may be pruned by it. but they originate from abstracting intuition. Is is the job of intuition to propose patterns (which are abstractions, whether a word for it has been found or not). It is also a map of the field of experience.

This last paragraph is itself very intuitive, opnionated, and is the result of my being tryiong to get all of it out, because I need a break. etc.... needs refining. discussion or explanations. I just don't think that the expert to sponge communication scheme that is not allowing objections from the sponge to be voiced and magnanimously considered by the expert, and further discussed by the rules of equal logic ability given the facts established or presented, is the way to keep going.... chess theory should be alive.