> coding is to software development what moving pieces is to chess.

And on a more serious note: I really like this mantra, but I do not think it's true or relevant:

There are many examples of success stories of what you would call "coders": Gates and Allen's Altair Basic and Zukerberg's Facebook are the famous ones - but I would argue that many software related business are also a product of "coding" and not "software development". See also WordPress or Wikipedia as examples. "Coding" is very important.

Software development is a very wide subject. The driving force of schools is mostly economical - training developers to fill a huge demand on this huge market. The thousands of open jobs require different sets of skills - and again I will argue that a high percentage of these jobs will allow a (very) junior developer to build good products as long as he knows to "code" and he can be managed and mentored by a senior developer. Being able "to code" will be a hard requirement for these jobs. Simple examples would be web and mobile development. enterprise/huge software projects. "Coding" can get you a job.

And, as I wrote in my other comment above, "training software developers" is not the same as "developing software". There are many ways to train developers - and where to start from and how much time it takes are good questions. Assuming a year (or 3-4 years) in college is very expensive and not accessible to anyone who can and want to be a software developer, finding other/more/different approaches to enter the software industry is needed. "Coding" is an eligible trailhead for starting to learn software development.

> coding is to software development what moving pieces is to chess.

AFAIK, when teaching kids chess, the best way to start is teaching them how to move the pieces.

The very next thing you teach them after the theoretical knowledge of how the pieces move is to sit on their hands, to avoid making impulsive moves.

This -- absolutely.

Knowing how to move the pieces is a foundational piece of information, but without the understanding of the theory of the game it's useless information.

Yes, and chess teachers will tell you, the way to improve as a beginner is through playing many many games quickly to get a wide variety of exposure and start developing intuition.

But most people wont go ahead 1600 elo easily without theory.

I know what you're getting at and it's a good mantra in a 'corrective' sense.

Perhaps a closer (nitpicky?) metaphor would be running to basket ball.

It's clearly important to be able to run well above average but trying to get to sprinter/marathoner levels has little to no benefit. Especially if it's at the expense of other skills like shooting, jumping, reflexes, etc.

Moving pieces is much simpler though... A lot of graduates of computer science didn't do much coding and are bad software engineers in my view.