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

In hindsight people say Capa's endgame prowess was overrated. His was routinely going into the endgame with a superior position so it's no wonder he did well.

Not knowing cutting edge theory is not the same as not studying (anyway, how can you avoid the beaten path if you don't know the beaten path to begin with?)

Svidler makes comments like this all the time in his banter blitz videos. One really made me laugh... he was playing a GM and lamented something like "oh no, I haven't studied this line since my youth, I don't remember anything, which is very bad to go into this line without knowing anything" then on move 12 he quotes some game from 1970 that had the same position, proceeded to play theory until move 15, and outplays his GM opponent in the middlegame, and wins before move 30.

When a professional says they "don't know an opening" they mean something very different from when a non-titled player says they "don't know an opening." The professional means they don't have the opening prepared to a professional standard, while the beginner means they've literally never seen or played it before.

Capablanca liked to talk about how much of a genius he was.

Granted, he did it in a more pleasant (and less obvious) way than, say, Nimzowitsch ... but there was still a clear self-celebratory tone in Capablanca's writings about himself, especially in his anecdotes about how he learned to play chess.

So it's not unreasonable to assume that may have been some ... embellishments ... thrown in here and there. And also some more mundane details (such as the more tedious act of actual chess study) that might've been conveniently glossed over, or unmentioned completely ...

You could get to 2000 FIDE with nothing but barebones ending basics and certain types of openings where natural play is a lot more forgiving, but you would in a sense be in a paradoxical position of developing your own anti-book, book, however succinct. 

You would have to be a very tough customer in the middlegame to compensate for these deficiencies however. You could get very far on tactics training and learning from your middlegame mistakes with an engine.

i could tell you though as someone that got to where i am on practically no "Traditional chess study" that now hitting books, be it in the endgame or thoroughly going over historical games annotated does have certain advantages over  brute-force osmosing your way through tabiya pattern recognition. You learn how to narrate your own thought process better. Sometimes, relying entirely on experience honed intuition is not efficient and must "talk" your way to find the best solution over-the-board and certain chess media helps with the introspection.

As for openings, this is preference, but i find being well prepared in your favorite lines, some of the easiest points you will ever earn, either via traps, or getting superior middlegame positions or simply having a better idea of the general plans than your opponents, so avoiding opening theory at all costs made no sense to me. I am a big fan of offbeat lines personally, but at my level, you often end up doing as much homework on them to make them viable, so its something you can rarely entirely avoid. Better pick your favorites, and do your due diligence.

#44
I know several IM who play their own anti-book book.
one of them:
1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 Nc6 3 Bb5 a6 4 Bxc6
1 e4 e6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5
1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 exd5 cxd5 4 Bd3
another:
1 e4 c6 2 d4 Na6
another:
1 Nc3
another:
1 g3, 2 Bg2, 3 Nh3

Isn't it a bit ridiculous to argue if Capa studied or not?

Because there weren't engines back then... So if he played hundreds of games in QGD and went over them, even without "preparing better winning possibilities", that is - in essence; studying... 

I think the question about "memorizing vs. knowing" is a bit like music. Are you "imitating" another musicians interpretation of a classical piece, or are you creating your own interpretation. Ussualy, the musician with his own interpretation will be more respected and achieve greatness... Where as the "copycat" who superficially imitates another's interpretation will not... Same would go for studying historical games or master games... Do you take inspiration, try to understand deeply, absorb concepts and admire genius, or will you try to "copy"... which is impossible...

In any case, in chess, like in music, it's all basically "there" to be discovered, it's not like anyone is inventing anything. 

the last one- g3, Nh3 or g6, Nh6, was played by Dutch master I-forgot-his-name and grandmaster Duncan Suttles.

Lol what a coincidence, I got matched with you earlier today, and now I stumble upon you on a thread. But I kind of disagree. You develop calculation skills as you play, so if you do nothing but play games, your calculation skills will improve. 

Sure you can, if you're extremely talented. On the other hand, if you are a normal human being, you should memorize at least a few positions, in particular classic mates and the first two or three moves of your openings

By not memorizing positions, do you mean that you will not memorize any opening lines?

Yes.  Though I know that over time, you will definitely have some that get stuck in your memory, and you might be forced to memorise some lines if/when you get trapped in some gambits etc.

Thanks.   Makes sense. 

no