Basic Principles seem to fail me

General principles can only take you so far, you need to also cater your moves to what your opponents are doing. If you could provide some example games of where you felt that principles failed you I could probably better help you out.

I agree with #2, though don't stay dogmatic to the principles follow them when you think it's right. Sometimes you have to break the principles and knowing when to do so can show if you're a good player or not.

Principles guide you, but evaluating the position (king safety, piece activity, pawn structure) should dictate your choices.

Improving Your Chess - Resources for Beginners and Beyond…

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/improving-your-chess-resources-for-beginners-and-beyond

Better to show an example as often a certain move will involve weighing up more  than one principle against another, and sometimes you might be following one principle but violating another but without a specific position it’s hard to get to the bottom of what might be going on.

as for capturing towards the centre, I think that can be framed as ‘capture towards the centre unless there’s a good reason not to’ but quite often there is a good reason. However even if you’re getting that decision wrong that’s unlikely to be much more than a positional error unless you’re overlooking something else at the same time. 

As has already been mentioned though, the rules are there to be broken and specific considerations (eg. what’s happening to your position at that exact moment) is always more important than any sort of general guidelines.

Who says you’re on the wrong path? You’re three months into it and having a go and also messing things up and finding things confusing, which is completely ok and it’s exactly the same as everyone else would be after such a short time. And yes you need more experience, don’t expect a lightbulb moment when everything suddenly clicks but eventually you’ll start seeing what works and what doesn’t in some situations and you’ll improve.

Respectfully, you asked a question, many people gave wonderful answers and are willing to help and you basically took your preconceived answer and said no to the assistance. Does that strike you as the proper way to improve? People aren't going to tell you that your move is wrong and that you should've done x instead. They're going to tell you WHY your move is wrong and WHY you should've played x instead. There's a huge difference. You conclusion of "disregard the basic principles until I know enough about the game to know when to ignore the basic principles" is essentially the opposite of what everyone is suggesting. You should follow the principles until you're strong enough to know when to break them. Like others have said, you still need to take into consideration what the position calls for, and judge between principles because there may be many at play, or there could be a simple tactical explanation as to why you would break the principles. The problem is nobody can really help you beyond general advice unless you're willing to show an example case. How are we supposed to know whether it was a tactical oversight, misunderstanding of the principle, misjudgment of which principe to follow or any other reason? Everyone is trying to help you and I can tell you're frustrated by your last sentence, but you need to accept the help or there's no point in asking the question. I apologize for the bluntness, but it will help in the long haul.

Example 1:https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/131256562555?tab=analysis&move=19

I move my Bishop to Ba6, develop off the back rank, point towards the king. The engine wanted Bd4. My position got worse

Example 2: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/131081353105?tab=analysis&move=10

I had already moved that knight twice in the opening, which is to much. So d3 to move a paw and get my bishop ready to develop and protect the knight. Engine wanted me to go d4 and move the pawn to and unprotected square

Example 3: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/130825210757?tab=analysis&move=19

Ke4 moved the knight twice in an opening. Engine said this was the right move

Example 4: https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/130825210757?tab=analysis&move=25

Castle Queen Side, engine wanted f6. Why shouldn't I castle before launching the attack.

I can keep going with these. I know they are wrong, I not trying to say they are right. But there is know way for me to figure it out and keep consistent, until the game review.

A perspective from a player (even) weaker than you who also tries to adhere to general principles. What I find is that such adherence often helps to maintain approximate parity through the early and middle middle game, but as more pieces come off the board the situations become so specific that 'principles' are less useful and each position must be played on it's own merits. That's when things become really hard. Maybe you need to add some tactics into the mix. (No need to tell me that it's easier said than done - if I ever reach an end game less than 3 pawns up I may as well resign )

Thank you for providing examples, I'll go through them one by one and take away key concepts.

Example 1: To be honest, Bd4 is not a reasonable request for a player of your strength, I don't even think 2000 rated players would be playing it. That being said, I would say that principles were broken much before that to where you need to find a move like Bd4 just to save the position. It's theory so I won't go too hard on you, but as early as move 4 you blundered a pawn and didn't know how to proceed in the position. I don't think this is a principle issue but more so a lack of theory issue. If you don't have the theoretical knowledge captures like Bxc6 followed by Nxe5 should at least be calculated to avoid such blunders. Next you moved your queen to attack the knight with no real improvement (one move-itis) and then blundered a pawn with d5 because he could remove the defender of d5 by taking on f6. Do you see how things crumbled much before Ba6? You're already down a pawn and have to play for dynamics in order to salvage the position.

Example 2: This is once again a theory issue. If you don't know what you should be playing for in an opening (you played Ng5, you NEED to be aware that your threat is Nxf7) then you will absolutely play something passive like d3 because you don't have the time or capacity to crunch the difficult calculations. Nxf7 is known as the fried liver attack. Alongside this move is d4 known as the lolli attack. Both are refutations to Nxd5. I strongly recommend you look into them if you're playing the knight attack. The overarching theme thus far is that you need to know what you're playing for, especially in the opening. If you're wining the opening I expect you to make nonstop mistakes. Literally anyone would, even strong players if you asked them to play an opening they haven't studied they would make mistakes in them. That's just the nature of openings because they're so complex and computers have gotten so strong that principles can only take you so far.

Example 3: Ne4 has a direct threat in that you're exploiting your opponent's weak dark squares (keep this in mind whenever your opponent has pushed their f pawn and even more so when they've pushed their h pawn.) So Ne4 intends to put the knight on an outpost and exploit whites dark squared weakness. Evident by the next move Qd7, you didn't catch the motive behind Ne4.

Example 4: The engine wanted f6 for a very concrete reason. That being that whites knight is about to hop to e5 and harass the queen you just put on d7. This is a clear example of when you must take into consideration your opponents move. You castling queenside only takes into consideration your plan. f6 takes into consideration your opponent's plan as well and stunts their knight while preparing your attack.

Overall, a common theme I can see is an over reliance on principle, a shaky knowledge of theory (to be expected when starting out) and an under emphasis on calculation. You can't just play natural moves and expect to win. As nice as that would be, you need to take into consideration your opponents moves and also calculate through the lines. Hope this helps, feel free to ask any other questions you need clarification on or if I wasn't clear on a specific point.

First of all, the point of principles is to give you some guidelines, in order not to move pieces randomly at the start, losing games because of a slow opening or weakening your king and whatnot. Without knowing them, you wouldn't even get to 800 rating.

So basically when you don't know what to do, following principles on average means that more often than not you will not get it wrong, but in some concrete instances, principles will not be the best moves.

If it were that simple, chess would be easy to play.

They are good, but it is just that principles are not a magic wand.

so in three months your at 1200 -- that s pretty good start --iam one year and still at 500 - so you are smarter than me -- i have problems with concepts understanding them as they are pointed out to me mostly when i do something wrong here by quite a few people in the forums and i have learned to have a thicker skin when it comes to receiving it -- but if i have learned one thing ---its you have to play your own game - your way - and feel the game more than just plop down set moves --- i wish i had your spirt - and i under stand your frustration --but everyone gets to point b from point a---it just the time factor that's different just keep plugging along and reading what others say then try things your self to see if they work for you not them but you and get to point c