Anyone familiar with "The Complete Manual of Positional Chess" by Sakaev & Landa?

Asking for opinions from people on this site, other than yours, does not amount to "control what others say". So, I will continue to ask for more useful opinions than yours, from others, on this forum. 

"no talking points about useless concepts or TOC screenshots."

Yes, you're trying to control the conversation. Why would anyone post more screenshots of the ToC again?

As for useless concepts...

If you looked at the ToC, you'd notice some of the same "useless" concepts are given by the other person you're annoying.

So, for you, the book would probably be useless.

Honestly, I was somewhat disappointed with it. I was reluctant to say because it does have good material and covers many concepts. I was expecting something completely new and a deeper coverage that would help me.

2 players, both rated 1800, can have a different level of understanding of many of the concepts. Both may already be familiar with the majority of the material in the books but learn a few things here and there.

That was my reason for providing the ToC in the first place.

"Yes, you're trying to control the conversation. Why would anyone post more screenshots of the ToC again?"

Dude, have you ever had human interaction before? Or you just sit in front of the chess screen all day and that's why you cannot distinguish between someone asking for another opinion and "controlling the conversation"?? 

I didn't find your opinion helpful or useful at all. And TOC even less so. Hence, I asked for others. 

Then you say, "So, for you, the book would probably be useless." 
Ahem, why is that? Because I found the other guy's concepts useless? Yes, they were useless, because chess is learned through examples and much practice (i.e. application of concepts) rather than reading bulleted points in a forum. I am aware of ALL the concepts he listed. I don't need verbal tips. I need practice with solid examples, and succinct explanations. I think this is obvious to anyone who plays chess seriously. 

You expected something new from the book? Like what? New discoveries that haven't somehow yet been discovered by Kasparov, Magnus and comp engines...? The hallmark of a good chess book isn't some "new" concepts or ideas. But how well it's organized, the usefulness of examples and explanations and the lucidity of the approach. 

So yes, two players can have different opinions of a book, and I am interested in hearing some of those opinions. And so far, I haven't seen any useful opinion from you. Saying the "goodness" of a book (whatever that even means) is 5/10 and that it has nothing "new" is just about as useless an opinion of a chess book as it gets. 

Yankee,

The books can be great for some, not so useful for the more experienced players, and maybe everyone can learn something.

I expected something new (to me), perhaps a different method or process to follow. Not a new discovery, as the books' covers have "Russian Chess School 2.0" on them.

Since you're familiar with chess books and their hallmarks, you probably know the quality of the features you've described by the publishers. Again, the ToC gives you how it's organized.

I'm not sure why you feel the need to belittle people, much less add a thank you afterwards.

If there's a specific question you have about a certain chapter, I might give you an example...if you can show a little more kindness.

"I'm not sure why you feel the need to belittle people" - this from one who began the post with "Yankee". 

I didn't belittle you, or anyone else here. I said that the opinion you provided of the books was useless to me. I am sorry that you are such a snowflake that you take that comment as belittling you. It is at best a criticism of your review/opinion of the book. It's not the same as belittling you. 

And no, I am not interested anymore in your opinions on these books. I find them useless. Saying that you expected a new method/process from the book is also useless, because it says nothing about what other similar books provide and how those compare with this one. 

It also sounds to me, frankly, that you haven't really immersed yourself in these books, but merely dipped into them. And upon discovering that there was nothing new to you in them, you probably closed them. In which case, you probably shouldn't be providing any reviews of these books, considering your limited experience with them. 

You addressed me as "Dude", which I don't appreciate. You try to sound sophisticated, so I assume it was an insult and not part of your normal vocabulary.

I don't care what you're interested in anymore. You've already highjacked the forum.

You search the internet for a formal and highly repected "review", if that's what you wanted all along. You can also look up "belittle" synonyms.

No further discussion between us is necessary.

Ok, dude. 

I have read the sample chapters and find them of tournament grade, meaning the advice and the level of analysis is not for beginners. Some of the examples he gives are basic to a 1800-1900(uscf) , but the level of analysis, at least in his samples, is complex.

By level of analysis, you mean the number of variation lines, the depth of lines, or the difficulty of the lines? 

https://www.pdfdrive.com/the-complete-manual-of-positional-chess-the-russian-chess-school-20-volume-1-opening-and-middlegame-e189766781.html https://www.pdfdrive.com/the-complete-manual-of-positional-chess-the-russian-chess-school-20-volume-2-middlegame-structures-and-dynamics-e189849136.html 

I’ve read that the claim of “Russian School of Chess” for these books is legit as the authors are active coaches, and their instruction is praised by fellow chess instructors. That opinion was what sold me to these books.