I got some good reviews on both The Amateur' mind and How to reassess your chess workbook,but some people say the analysis is innacurate because engines were weak at that time,So are those books still worth buying?

Well i think the analysis cant be weak because of engines as  far as i understand silman its about strategy and not concrete variation, even so i believe with correct strategy they are mostly correct. I havent read the reasses though, but there are lesson from silman on chessmentor you can check them out. I think it has a pretty cool lesson from amateurs mind in it.

I think in general Silman is pretty good i liked his endgame book, but inmho opinion his pawn forks article here was still quite useless. 

but ofc im not a master, they still can be right and he is full of mistakes and im just to stupid to see that rofl. But to me it looks correct

Thnx!Ill give it a try

I studied Silman's literature first; literally. I read Seirawan and Silman's Chess Strategy then moved onto Reassess and amateur's. I'd go so far as to say I had an obsession with strategy, and devoted all of my study time to it (creating a huge void in my tactical ability).

What I have found is that it is essential to have at least a decent strategic understanding, but without tactics you'll run into a brick wall.

I'd advise reading Euwe's Judgment and planning in chess (not too long of a read, also focused on strategy) before you move on to Silman; In Euwe's book he points out specific moments where strategy comes to fruition through (very difficult to see) tactics.

It shines a light on the fact that strategy and tactics are cyclical; to become a strong positional player you have to become strong at tactics, and to become a strong tactician you must be a strong positional player. 

I have both books.  RAYC is more useful.  The Amateur's Mind talks a lot about bad moves made by weak players.  It's somewhat useful, but not as good as Reassess Your Chess.  He came out with a latest version of Reassess (4th ed?), but I actually like the previous edition better.

The reason i need a srategic book is because tactics can be improved easily by using tactics trainer or many of the chess mentor lessons,Amazing tactical videos etc..but there isnt that much about positional understanding,Im good enough at tactics for my level but need to understand strategy better!

I recently acquired RYAC 4th Ed.  Comparing it to an earlier 2nd edition shows that it is a complete re-write.  I would expect errors to have been uncovered and corrected in the newer version(s) including stronger engine analysis, if in fact engines were used.

No.

What you need is to absorb chess strategy by seeing well-explained classic games with to-the-point annotations.

I would recommend the following above all in the following order:

Chess the Easy Way, by Reuben Fine

Judgment and Planning in Chess, by Euwe (as mentioned by xAsnl)

Simple Chess, by Michael Stean

The Middle Game in Chess, by Reuben Fine

First of alll,Thnx!I'm lucky to have been reccomended books by a CM!I'll certainly check those books out!

You're welcome. A lot of posters here will tell you to ignore strategy and just do tactics nonstop, but your training needs to be balanced. DO spend a lot of time on tactics though. If you don't already have tactics to work on, I'd recommend three more books, depending upon your level (all by Sergey Ivaschenko):

Chess School 1a, for 0 to 1000

Chess School 1b, for 1000-1600

Chess School 2, for 1600 to 2200.

The book Reassess your Chess, can somebody estimate a rating range that would most benefit from it?

Because I have the idea that most of Silman's books are targeted towards beginners, and the OP has a good blitz rating.

I had the same thought as well!My friend who is rated 1800 FIDE tried the book and told me that it was helpful for him and I should go for it!So,I just wanted the opinions of the very helpful and friendly chess.com members as a confirmation.

well i thought silman is helpful because it covers technique that its easy to understand but still not obvious... actually thats why i ment analysis was not important because he teaches right technique and ofc for a master there is no need in using computer analysis except for big oversights.