I call BS on the memorization point. I've heard it so much when I was playing chess and, of course, from all movies with chess in them where apparently if you are smarter than the other guy you can always win, regardless of practice. Instead, I was getting destroyed by named lines and variations that people learned to recognize, memorize and study like versets of the bible.
And I know your reply will be "I was talking about beginners", but what do you think the best learning strategy is? Learning something as a beginner and unlearning it later while getting occasionally demolished by a lower rated opponent with a single trick up their sleeve, or starting directly with a consistent model of what chess is? I don't understand how DragonballZ logic "You haven't seen my true form!" can benefit learning. I find things hard to learn, harder to remember yet even harder to unlearn.
And probably you will reply that learning the principles does not exclude the memorization of openings later on, when reaching a higher level of understanding, but is it so? You start by learning the value of pieces or early development, only to then be stumped when people just sacrifice said pieces in favor of difficult to quantify square control or tempo. And by the time you realize chess is a game about space and time, not about material, you have two conflicting viewpoints that you struggle to reconcile.
The thing is, I agree with you, but the choice of principles you've chosen to showcase as a valid starting point feels just as random as opening memorization. Learn WHY something works and if opening memorization helps, do it. If you use that to understand why castling early is a "principle" then by all means, put it in your toolbox. However a memorized principle is just as bad as a memorized opening.
And, BTW, the one single most effective tool for chess excellence is visualizing the board and the moves in your head, without looking at the board. Most people don't even know it's a thing until they are well into chess and then they find it difficult to learn it. Start with that, why don't you?
And I know your reply will be "I was talking about beginners", but what do you think the best learning strategy is? Learning something as a beginner and unlearning it later while getting occasionally demolished by a lower rated opponent with a single trick up their sleeve, or starting directly with a consistent model of what chess is? I don't understand how DragonballZ logic "You haven't seen my true form!" can benefit learning. I find things hard to learn, harder to remember yet even harder to unlearn.
And probably you will reply that learning the principles does not exclude the memorization of openings later on, when reaching a higher level of understanding, but is it so? You start by learning the value of pieces or early development, only to then be stumped when people just sacrifice said pieces in favor of difficult to quantify square control or tempo. And by the time you realize chess is a game about space and time, not about material, you have two conflicting viewpoints that you struggle to reconcile.
The thing is, I agree with you, but the choice of principles you've chosen to showcase as a valid starting point feels just as random as opening memorization. Learn WHY something works and if opening memorization helps, do it. If you use that to understand why castling early is a "principle" then by all means, put it in your toolbox. However a memorized principle is just as bad as a memorized opening.
And, BTW, the one single most effective tool for chess excellence is visualizing the board and the moves in your head, without looking at the board. Most people don't even know it's a thing until they are well into chess and then they find it difficult to learn it. Start with that, why don't you?