Maximum Rating knowing none openings?

yes, chess is composite of two parts: mechanical movements and creative movements, but I think the salt and soul and the funny part is the creative.

Look don't take things out of proportions

I gave an example of 2 guys who played eachother for several years every day. And what happened. Those guys where creative only slowly the creativity got deeper in the game.

The only thing I am trying to explain to you is that without reading books and using the principles you will start to develope your own lines. Because that is how the human mind works.

You will put your pieces on the squares you like the best and you will not want to make the same mistake over and over again. Even when you don't analize your games after you finish them you will start to recognize after making a mistake 10 times how it works.

It is easy to judge others but keep an example like an example and stay with your question.

Your starting question was how far you can get without knowing chess openings but with using the chess principles.

My answer was that that is a contradicting question because everybody who uses the chess principles is automaticly developing his/hers own openings with or without books and with or without knowing what the names are.

And the people who "niver herda the None Opening" mostly also "niver herda the None Principles" and easyly block pawns with bishops or block bishops with pawns etc etc etc.

don't try to remember the names, just try to understand the positions and its main ideas (ideas, refutations, and traps).

I go to USCF A class, and then found out i need to learn some openings.  

What i was told as i was learning is that openings arent important until i got to USCF 2000.  I put my efferts into the opening principles, middlegame planning, and endgames.  

Ok I am starting to understand you.

I play f4 because the answers are limited if you play e4 you can get all kind of defences like french sicilian e5 or others.

Those guys in my example did not think it was dull only because they where not realy interested in the first 20 or so moves, the real game started later for them.

For me I try to play several lines one with the d pawn staying on d2 and the bishop going to b2 another one with the bishop staying on c1 supporting f4 and trying to push e4 supported by d3 and sometimes stonewall with d4 e3 f4 where the kingsbishop goes to d3 and normaly the kingsbishop goes to e2. Also I variate with the queensknight on c3 or d2.

These are all variations with there own different strategies if not it would be really dull.

I also variate between accepting from or going to kingsgambit.

The problem is the more variations you play the more you have to remember and then how far you can get depend on your ability to learn from your mistakes and your ability to remember.

But again how far you can get has nothing to do with how much books you read only with understanding and remembering positions the more variations you play the less dull it will be but the more positions you have to remember that is all.

Against professionals it's probably impossible, but master should be fine.

One problem is you'd learn things just by playing often. So even if your openings were strange, you'd be refining them as you play. In that case I think a person could even get the GM title... but never be as high as pros like, say, Kramnik.

I honestly guessed my way though the opening phase until I was ~1750. I had read annotated games, so I knew the middlegame ideas, and about the first 5 moves of common openings. The biggest consequence was falling behind on time in the opening. Also there were a few times I fell into traps of course, but not as often as you might think. Sometimes I'd manage to stay in book 10+ moves without knowing it just because I was playing reasonable moves.

Well,you must have huge talent for something like that.

There can perhaps be somekind of catastropich point in openings: one little change and the game gonna evolve to whole new directions? You know the chaos theory and "butterfly effect"? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butterfly_effect

If not for the usefulness of the center, and nearly completely static features like pawn structure, we really might see wildly different games develop from very innocent looking opening differences.

This might best be explored by teaching two people the game only through tactical puzzles. Then after a number of years, show them the starting position for the first time and let them play.

A few years ago, I played against a 10 year old US national master in the US.  He does not know any opening theories.   In fact, he said it is quite common that he goes into an inferior positions not knowing the openings but had to fight his way back to victory.

I have a 1400 rating and I just figured out how rooks move.

Next lesson for you: learn how to castle. Or do you already know it?

Maybe it's a matter of semantics, but I think it is impossible for anyone to play chess on a regular basis reasonably competently without "learning about openings" -- even if one does not systematically study openings.  Understanding opening theory is not above memorizing names of openings or even a series of moves.  Understanding an opening means understanding the goals and objectives of a particular opening, the strengths and weaknesses for each side in that opening, and the typical tactics that recur in that opening.

Naturally, one starts to learn an opening by playing it, making mistakes and learning not to repeat them.  If one truly did not learn anything about any opening that one played, then one would have to analyze the beginning of every game de novo.  Hence, if your opponent opens e4, one would have think through all the possible responses and lines.  In reality, one remembers what moves were successful previously.  For example, if one immediately responds c5 to e4 (even if one had no idea that the opening was called the Sicilian) because one recalled that this led to positions or tactics that were favorable, then one has mastered at least one move in one opening (and thereby has learned some opening theory).

In short, I don't think it's possible for anyone to play chess even at a low rating without "learning" opening theory in some form and at some basic level.

That's true. I'm just relieved that their names do not need to remember 

Of course not!

YEs, of course of course not, but  teacher would think they must remember.