Beginners SHOULD learn openings

So if a player just plays by opening principles they'll play the best most theory-ridden openings in chess? I don't think so. Often GMs struggle to understand why one move is better than another, or one move would be played until after years or decades of practice before it's discovered that it doesn't really work too well (eg. the Dragon, fine for under-IM of course). 

Beginners should understand they're getting the cheeseburger and fries version explanations of why openings are the way they are - fast and allowing them to make progress, but not close to how rich the openings really are. There are usually 5+ reasonable plausible moves (depending on the position), and instead of wasting time trying to find the exactly meaning behind one (which even GMs mightn't understand) it's better to push on. And sometimes they even go against opening principles, by moving the same piece twice or something simlar. This goes for GMs as well, they're also often memorizing and not understanding exactly why a particular move is played. It is important to just push the next move and move on sometimes, especially if a move's purpose doesn't become clear until 10 moves time.   

Sometimes GMs memorize large swathes of openings and then figure out over the board what the hell the point of the position is, Anand (I think) admitted to doing this where his team game him sheets of variations and he just blindly followed them, confident he would end up in a good position. 

Another thing is you talk about nimzo and dragon etc. as if people are born knowing this stuff. The average guy who rarely plays chess will have no idea what you're talking about. I've seen players, usually from non-western countries, that can get up to ~1800 and know zero openings at all, except maybe what the ruy lopez is. As often brought up here almost every time you see a Bowdler attack it's one of these guys, but they might win tactically in the end. So I think everyone should know at least the first few moves, for everyone's sanity. 

I think the point he trying to convey is that chess openings ARE principals.  

D4- white gains space, lets his bishop out, etc

Nf6- Black develops while preventing white from playing e4

C4- White gains space and still preps e4 (Nc3 allows an easy d5 by black)

e6- White can't play e4 just yet so black takes the time to let his bishop out etc

Nc3- develops a piece and looks to play e4 once more

Bb4- develops, prevents e4 

and it goes on, each move can be explained simply at first and with more depth as the player improves.

I used to play the Nimzo with both colors frequently and it was easy to tell who memorized moves and who understood the position. For example, I have played quite a few games as white that went 1.d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3.Nc3 b6   I don't think this is as bad as others do, but many players will memorize a series of moves and play it against everything.  In this case, they didn't understand (or didn't care) that they were losing control of the center.   This is also a big part of why conventional wisdom says to meet d4 with d5 and e4 with e5 in the beginning.  It can be easier to understand fighting over pieces than fighting over squares. 

There are a fair number of points that I also subscribe to in what you write, but interestingly enough I come to, what appears to be, an opposite conclusion. 

I don't say that by playing openings based on strategic understanding you're playing the best openings possible. I'm saying that by playing logical moves you'll reach a playable middlegame even if those logical moves aren't theoretically optimal. 1. e4, c5; 2. Nf3, d6; 3. Bc4 isn't optimal, but there's no way black can immediately win. It's not even like black has an advantage. Now put that up against just learning moves. We've all seen it. You play 8, 12, 16 moves of theory and suddenly the opponent does something that he's not 'supposed' to do. So often we don't find the killer move ourselves and within 2 or 3 moves the evaluation has completely changed. And I'm not talking about <1500 level, I'm talking about my own level. One of my last competitive games, I lost in 8 moves with white. I couldn't remember 'the move' that I had looked at in the morning, didn't know the position, overlooked a tactic and was so shocked I blundered my whole position away on the next move and simply resigned. 

In my view learning moves while not understanding the position is the cheeseburger and fries way. It might be fulfilling when a trap works, but it doesn't really help you become stronger. Finding your own path is like eating broccoli. You might not like doing it, cause you will lose before you gain more familiarity with the position, but it will make you stronger. Especially if you forgo the mental exercise of learning moves by heart, but rather focus your studying time on the middle game that can potentially ensue. 

True, it's really important for beginners to start learning about openings. Mostly principles though, but it's crucial to stop falling for traps and so on. You can't always play from a terrible position.

I disagree. It is far more important for beginners to learn the basic principles of chess.  As described by Yasser Seirawan, they are: force, time, space and pawn structure. Without becoming familiar with those principles, openings will not make sense. Openings are useful or not only within the context of those basic principles, not as weapons in their own right. 

Structure and piece development go hand in hand.  Different pawn structures are used for different plans and your pieces compliment that.  A beginner with a plan will be more prepared to set their pieces up on effective squares.  If your pieces are more active, you are setting your opponent up for tactics down the road. 

@carlto720 I really like Ginger GM.  He explains the plans behind the moves though (I think he does this very well).  He tries to explain the spirit of the moves and the principles behind them which allows you to take advantage of an inferior move.  Even so, some of what he discusses might be too advanced for a beginner and would be better left for later.  For example, in some of his videos he advocates for the Poisoned Pawn Winawer.  Here black gives white a bigger center, gives up the bishop pair (his good bishop to boot), and then gives away a pawn.  Opening principles might keep you from playing this way while memorizing theory wouldn't.  If white deviates from theory, you forget a move, etc, you can wind up in bad shape pretty quickly.   

If you like his style, his youtube channel has loads of videos where he gives you insight into his thought process during games.

It's fine for beginners to learn openings, as long as they understand what they're learning, and the logic behind each move.

If they don't understand the moves, though, then it's just pointless, and it proves that they aren't ready yet.

But if they do understand what they're learning, then it can absolutely help their game improve.

So a lot depends on the student, and their level of understanding.

     It all depends on what the beginner is looking for. If he wants to achieve a better win/loss % vs other beginners then learning opening traps and specific lines will work best. If they want to become a good player, learning basic opening principles and trying to apply them in the games they play will serve them better in the long run. Just realize that finding opening lines that help beat weak players will do little good when your rating rises and you face stronger players. Then the opening principles, understanding pawn structures, deeper tactical calculation and endgame knowledge become more important. Learning the basics first will slow your initial success but will pay off in becoming a better player more quickly.

     But if they learn the "other stuff" first they will better appreciate what you show them about openings later. It depends on the beginner--if they will become discouraged by losing more often at first and give up it is unlikely that they will be willing to work hard enough later to ever reach their potential.

This. It's important to start learning why certain moves are good and bad. It's just not good for a new player to always weaken their king to a point of no return.

I still don't understand why someone would want to focus on openings first without understanding the basic principles, and why some would advise them that this is ok. But, as the young people say, "whatever."  To each his or her own.

No one says they need to memorise 20 moves of theory. They need to know the principles and common traps and not get mated in 4 moves.

If you follow opening principles, you don't get mated in 4 moves.

Yes, that's why knowing how to play the opening properly is important.

ive been studying openings about a dozen years if I told you they don't matter at all it would burn off both of your ears.

I agree with this, you can't just beat the Sicilian "with the opening principles" am I right? Opening principles take 5 minutes to learn and in open situations even a baby could apply them, if you want to learn openings as a lower rated player there is no reason you shouldn't!

That's why the Sicilian is so much easier to play as white (at lower levels anyway). If white plays the open Sicilian he is developing rapidly, taking more space in the center, etc. All opening principals. 

It may take 5 minutes to learn them, but people spend much longer learning how they apply and when to ignore them