"Even though chess has been around for well over a
thousand years, good introductory teaching doesn't exist.
So far, nobody has survived chess baptism without scars.
Are you ready to join me in making history?"
Hyperbole much? Guides, books, teachers have been around as long as chess have [1] so to suggest that none of these provide a 'good introductory teaching' is somewhat hubristic.
"Hyperbole is the use of exaggeration as a rhetorical device or figure of speech. In rhetoric, it is also sometimes known as auxesis. In poetry and oratory, it emphasizes, evokes strong feelings, and creates strong impressions. As a figure of speech, it is usually not meant to be taken literally." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbole)
Yes, absolutely correct, I used hyperbole :)
I kind of want to truncate my response to the above. I will respond in more detail, not to be defensive, but because perhaps there is a misunderstanding that can be rectified here. This expressive passage was not meant to convey hubris.
I genuinely have yet to find a text which comprehensively introduces the game in a fun way, as mine does. You will see in other comments that folks often have chess sets lying around, but they struggle to engage those around them or teach the game engagingly. The tone of that paragraph is born from a very real, very modern, and very frustrating experience.
Most books that "teach" chess are things like My System, which presumes some familiarity with the game and its rules, and is also just super dry. Josh Waitzkin's Attacking Chess was great as an intro to tactics, but not to the piece movements or chess itself as a whole. There are no other resources I have seen which effectively employ minigames, except perhaps IM Herman Grooten's recommended "Steps Method" (https://www.stappenmethode.nl/en/). After speaking with IM Grooten, I decided that their approach, while great for the classroom and extremely comprehensive, is not encapsulated in a form that non-chess instructors would find worth paging through and implementing in their lives or with their loved ones.
As an aside, I think Lucena's book was written so long ago that some of the rules (pawn double-step, en passant, long-range queen movement, castling) may not have been the same. I haven't read it, and I don't know anyone who has, so I can't say for sure. Wikipedia hints at this.
I really can't say where the counterexample is, because I haven't found good introductory teaching. Lichess has great learning modules, which can take someone from zero knowledge to decent player in a great engaging way. But that's not well-explained to a parent or beginner who isn't quite self-motivated to dig through hardcore chess stuff on their own.
For those in the autodidact demographic, my book is irrelevant for sure, and perhaps that includes you. Other resources those folks might find more useful (the kind who want lists of source material instead of some hubristic author opining) I have listed here: https://andytrattner.com/chess
Hyperbole much? Guides, books, teachers have been around as long as chess have [1] so to suggest that none of these provide a 'good introductory teaching' is somewhat hubristic.
1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Ram%C3%ADrez_de_Lucena