Can I get to 2000+ on principles, without memorising positions?

Do you think a person can become an expert chess player above 2000+ using principles only, without memorising chains of moves and positions? 

When I say principles, I mean for example:

1.  Control as many central squares as possible.

2.  Castle early.

3.  Get out of potential pins quickly.

4.  Play distant potential pins.

5.  Protect your active pawns with at least two pieces.

And so many other principles. 

No

if you can calculate yes... if not then no... probably no either way...

Well he didn't say he won't calculate right?

I'd say if a player gets to 1300 without memorizing opening lines at all, that means his calculation probably has very good potential...

how about 1900 without genuine focused study on lines?

-

-

No.

No.

Well I have done minimal memorization and emphasize tactics and principles over memorization. But learning tactics is a form of subconscious memorization. I've gone from 800 to 1900 in 2 years without really studying opening theory. I can't necessarily speak for OTB. But chess is chess. What do you want out of it? A FIDE rating of 2000 or a chess.com rapid rating of 2000? Specification is needed.

I don't memorize any openings or study chess at all, would take the fun out of it for me, but a master told me that if I want to get any better I would have to study chess, I refused because he wanted to charge $50 per lesson. Maybe you can make 1700 or 1800 level at the longer time controls without any study at all. It shows with me at the shorter time controls because memorizing positions instead of having to think to figure them out is an advantage there. Maybe it depends somewhat on the time controls?

#1
"Can I get to 2000+ on principles, without memorising positions?"
++ Yes you can. It is even more likely you get to 2000 if you do not memorize positions, as this hinders your progress. Capablanca even became world champion without memorizing positions.

possible but you may have to play the old school openings where principles apply the most. there will still be some memorizing required but not daunting. even then when the position gets complicated you have to calculate accurately. and that takes a lot of practice.

but i doubt that without study you can get somewhere decent. even those with tremendous talent had to study to get there.

it's hard to just settle for a specific rating, especially if most of what you did to get there is win by one-move blunders and horrible tactical accidents by the opponent. for me there has to be some resistance to overcome in order to justify getting to whatever rating i would like to be in. but that's just me.

Interesting comment... But I wonder what you mean exactly.

I study some opening lines on chessable, and I feel it has helped me progress, but maybe I'm wrong... I do sometimes play a bad move with much confidence because I studied a similar position... similar, but failing to recognize it's different, making the move a blunder...

So what do you actually mean by " memorizing positions" at all?

I look at the chessable thing as enriching your vocabulary of ideas, especially those that are hard to find OTB... not as a "if this, then this" memorizing of every possible move/reply...

Obviously trying to memorize with engine every move/reply is nonsense...  

So what I'm asking is, what's the borderline between memorizing positions and analyzing openings learning strong ideas...?

#15
" I wonder what you mean exactly"
++ I mean time and effort spent on openings does not make you any better.
"it has helped me progress"
++ It is an illusion. Openings help you faster beat weaker players which you should beat anyway, but does not help you against stronger players: they either deviate or they know more about it from experience.
"what's the borderline between memorizing positions and analyzing openings learning strong ideas"
++ All time and effort spent on openings does not help progress. analyse lost games, analyse grandmaster games, analyse endgames, but not openings.

Be more specific with your question. 

2000FIDE or 2000 bullet online? 

Interesting point about beating them anyways...  I'll try this approach and stop studying openings see how it feels... Thanks! 

Principles are just introductory bullet points for the broader spectrum known as "positional play".

To reach 2000+, though, you still need more than basic positional understanding. You also need decent tactical vision (also known as: "calculation").

Excel at both (positional understanding + calculation), and 2000+ should be easy.

If you want to study something that actually pays off, study endgames, that was very good advice by tygxc above. When I began to play in my 50s a strong player told me to learn the endgame first.  I took a 1 hour endgame course (on Chessmaster 10 back then) and my OTB rating went up immediately 100 points. Two out of three games go to the endgame and if you don't know that you will lose a lot.  Next just do the puzzles here on chess.com to learn tactics, which is tied with the endgame for the most important thing to know. Learn a few openings last if you play bullet, don't even need to learn them on longer time controls, or you can really just learn them from playing at that point.