Chess seems like it would be hard to teach. You could tell them about openings, but the moves probably seem pointless and make no sense. You could teach them about strategy or endgames, but again, the moves will seem pointless and make no sense. At least tactics have an immediate resolution. You can show them mate or winning a queen and they realize this is a good thing.
I also learned in a haphazard way at first, picking up bits of information here and there, and playing blitz online. Slowly the isolated bits of information grew until they started to connect. While reading Pawn Structure Chess by Soltis something clicked, and now the bits of information had connected enough that the game as a whole started to make sense... instead of isolated sequences of guessing.
How should chess be taught? I don't know. It seems you give a student a lot of homework, that may even seem pointless to them, then hope they're interested enough to keep learning until things start to click for them.
Regarding the title, of course first a beginner should learn (and practice preforming) the opening principals. Soon after though, I do think learning/memorizing the first few (lets say 5) moves of their main openings.
When I started playing chess the only things I knew where the moves. I played against people that knew more than me. Though I was younger, and less knowledgable, I eventually got better than all of my opponents. Basically I was the king of Patzers LOL.
Later in life I started playing chess again for a little bit. I had enlisted in the Military as a computer nerd and needed something to do when they gave us a pass in basic training. I think I only played chess for two days during basic training, as all you do is train in basic training
. Anyway, what I remember from my games was that I was able to clobber a lot of beginners. The only game I lost was against a champian, who I know now, was trying to teach me not to be so hard on the beginners...
Of course those where the days where there was no computer analysis, and no chess.com. There where not neaerly as many chess books written about chess back then, save for the classics, that are still here today.
I forgot to mention that in between the time from when I started learning how to play to before basic training where I played for 2 days, I played chess in high school at the chess club there. The Strongest player there, was a friend of mine, and still is to this day. He was the best of us, and I was nothing compared to how good he was.
When I was stationed in Korea I was put in a unit that required a top secret clearance, and was not able to perform my job as I did not have the clearance. So I was tasked to guard the facility I was suppose to work in. Of course We really didn't have to do much but make sure anyone trying to get in had the right clearance to get in. we worked 12 hour shifts, and I often worked at night. Some of those nights I played chess on yahoo.
I learned a lot about losing during that time, and found that often times people wondered if I knew how to play chess. The caliber of players I was playing against shifted, and I either had to up my skills or just learn to like losing. I will guess that I played about 5,000 games during that time.
So eventually I got out of the military under honerable, medical conditions, and I started playing chess with my friend in high school again, along with my biggest brother, and my cousin. At the time I was better than my cousin, and my brother, but I still was not better than my high school friend.
So my quest was to get better than my friend! How was I going to accomplish this? Simply, by buying a chess book written by the world champian of the time, Garry Kasparov.
The book said I had to learn at least a little about openings, and so showed some common openings, but that didn't really help me very much, simply because I did not want to memorize a bunch of moves.
Then I met, who I believe to be a chess master, that simply hides his playing ability by playing basic moves usually and only playing higher level depending on who he is playing.
I do not recall exactly how many games we played over the board without a clock. However, I do know that during that time, because I was playing someone that understood general opening principles, I learned them, by simply playing him.
As time went on we started playing chess against more of our friends, and more came along to join in on the fun. I was very slow back then, when it came to thinking of chess moves, however, I had a good grasp of the game.
As time went on I learned to play a lot faster, simply because I knew if I didn't play fast I would lose. We where playing 3 minute chess.
I played people with varying styles. I don't know how they do it, but they calculate how long it would take to checkmate and find out that they do not have enough time to do so so they trade down losing material but end up winning with time. A nice still to have, however, it only works on slow movers like me. I guess if I had two choices on winning a game where I did not have to think very much with winning a game where I had to think a whole lot I gather I would pick the first rather than the latter myself, however, I see speed chess as a form of entertainment. The real value does not come with winning or losing, but comes with getting faster at making the moves, and learning something.
I don't know when, but I do beleive that at a certain point I stopped getting better. I mean I didn't stop getting better altogether, but my chess growth was a bit more stagnent for the past 5-8 years or so, until I started the prodigy program.
In the program I learned an actual opening repertoire, and actually had direction. Though I did not study as I was suppose to in the prodigy program. What little that I did go over in the program improved my play to the point where I was not 1000 at blitz anymore but became 1400.
After learning the repertoire I learned ways to avoid the mainline altogether, be it using cheap tactics by the infamous GJ_Chess, or simply playing some variation of the Bowlder, or combining it with playing c3 avoiding mainline theory by not playing d4.
In my quest I learned that it isn't the lines that teach you how to play chess, but rather, learning to wing it when you are out of book, and learning the general strategies that should be employed in each and every different type of pawn structure. People that are really good like to play moves that are out of book, but if you know the pawn structures...
In conclusioni, you do not learn to become good at chess by playing only speed chess, or only slow chess. It's only by playing a combination of the two modes of play where you really learn how to play chess. Dan Heisman Illustrates the faults in people's styles who only play speed chess, or who only play slow chess. And, it's time I learn how to play slow chess!
I love the game. I may not ever become a master, however, I'll have fun trying!