Decline of the tactics...Please read and comment.

Good point, and that's exactly why endgame are proposed to be taught first.  The opening has principals to follow (those are good to teach first also) but opening theory and variations are infinitely complex because there are more pieces.

Middle games are incredibly complex too.  (Of course general strategy can be covered).

Endgames have just a few pieces and teach the beginner the basics and what he's actually playing for and how your pieces should interact.  It's easier because of the reduced material.

Bringing back the math analogy teaching the goal (checkmate / basic endgames) last would be like teaching a math problem by telling them how to work out all these complex functions without knowing why or what for and only at the very end say, and this is what we're trying to do btw, and it's over.  That would be incredibly confusing and a much harder way to learn.

Like I said general opening principals and strategic concepts are also a great foundation, but basic endgames and mate in 1 - 2 puzzles are fantastic for beginners.

Maybe tactics with a bit of openings along the way?

I certainly didn't learn endgames (at least outside of the basic mates) first. I don't understand why one needs to know that a bishop and knight or two bishops work well together from endgames because, well, chess is a team game, so it's kind of obvious even when I was a beginner. Not that I knew how to make my pieces work together at the time, but I knew it was possible!

Basic mates are endgames.

I have an idea. How about studying strategy and endings along with tactics as a way to improve? Do you think it would result in more rapid improvement than just focusing on only one area?

If  mostly basic mates is what people mean by endgames for beginners, then of course I agree. Those are absolutely fundamental.

I vote tactics b/c the opening is just the start of the game and in order to win your opening consists of tactical moves that win positions

Well tactics are probably the most important for improving, but I don't think any area of the game should be totally ignored for long term improvement. And I mean playing only for tactics is kind of shallow anyway and takes some joy out of it, I think.

I think it's very hard to teach someone strategy when they are new at the game or even at a low skill level...understanding its application will be like reading Nietzsche in a foreign language. 

Yeah, very hard to teach someone strategy of chess... let alone learn it! It was tough!

ok, Tactics:9    Openings:2     any more votes?

Tactics:10

Openings:4

Sorry for the late entry, but I vote tactics. Isn't an opening just another form of tactics? I mean, from the beggining of any match with any opening you use, a plan should be forming around that opening and one should know what that opening is trying to accomplish so the tactics can work around it.

So, tactics.

Ok, thanks Fishes!    Tactics:11

                              Openings:4

could you stop posting the points?  it's lame and nobody cares...

What are tactics? 

Or "strategical position" for that matter?

Openings are generally more stategical like in the queen's gambit White usually wants to go for a relatively quite line with a slight edge and try to sqeeze a win. In the ruy lopez exchange white wants to take advantage of the fact that Black's queenside majority on the queenside can't create a passed pawn in an endgame etc...

Nietzsche is in a foreign language.  He was German.

Yes Beast...but what if someone reading the thread is fluent in German?  Then it has to be a foreign language for them too.