how is this book for Karpov? target reader level? comparison?

If it is the second enlarged, it's better than the first enlarged. So, I would say that's pretty good. Quit while you are ahead.

not understood. comp

what level is iit

target audience level? compared with the Karolyi book?

Those kind of books are useful for teaching if available, but why buy these books when you could just use an engine with a database of those games? You'll get more up to date analysis with the suggested variations/alternatives from the book which are likely to have errors and inaccurate analysis. I found the second online and they have it in descriptive notation. That alone would make me move on. Chances are, anything useful in the books you can find online free in a video or chess tutorial.

Anybody can benefit from studying Karpov's games, even GMs.  But the Karolyi book is clearly targeted at a higher level than the Mednis book, which is written for club players.

It's hard to estimate target audience, but I would guess roughly Mednis = 1700-2200, Karolyi = 2000-2500.

Both books are quite good.

When people say books are geared for this level or that level, I wonder if it has to do with complexity of the material or relevance as in whether or not that position will come up in the reader's games. I can understand more actually from the "higher level" rated books because I can see it in context. The lower level books don't complete a thought. They just preach conclusions and I want to see where these conclusions occur. In the supposed higher level books, you can see clearly why the author is pointing out the moves they make. 

The question is, will I ever reach that kind of a position in my games? The answer is invariably no. So, it seems like applicability is used more to judge the level of a book rather than actual content. 

I feel different as for a book with too high level, then the thoughts and reasonings are too complicated to understand. and some high level notes preach to conclusions by assuming this reasoning is too easy to list. the le

the thought and presentation need to be appropriate depth to lead reader think more, and not too long to get lost. and about the relevancy, it makes sense as player's thoughts can be ignited if exposed in similar positions or thoughts.

I would love to see an example of this. What is an example of a 2000-2300 excerpt in a book that a 1500 player shouldn't bother learning? I have always had difficulty in class at the beginning stages because I don't know why the generalizations are taught first. But when I stick with it and move to 2nd year or 3rd year in that subject, I go back to the 1st year books and I see the rhyme and reason because I am now digging deeper into the subject matter and I can now relate to the conclusions the author made in the 1st year books.

In a similar fashion, I will make a move I see in a Youtube video or in a beginner book. Then I lose. Then, I look at it through Stockfish, and the Stockfish line clearly shows a 4 move sequence that negates what I saw or read. 

push to extreme. engine moves highest level. but why a 1600 player learn that?

That's the misconception. Actually, top GMs know their opponent at their level know the computer moves. They are looking for secondary moves their opponent didn't prepare for.

However, if we go to an engine, we should look for key moves. The fallacy here is many think they need to understand everything to get to the next level. You don't need to know every move an engine spits out. Look at the repetition and patterns over time.

You will see what can be played to either balance the position or go for a win. So, you aren't pushing to an extreme, just like you wouldn't push to an extreme and read a whole encyclopedia. Use the engine as a reference tool.

My opinion is that the more concrete analysis is included and necessary to understand the points being made in the book, the higher the level.   

The weaker the player, the more lots of concrete lines will slow him/her down - and they probably won't understand the lines anyway. 

I feel the same way about Dvoretsky's Analytical Manual: lots of interesting and sharp analysis, but totally useless for me from the learning perspective because it is just a huge collection of incredibly deep concrete analysis that ultimately means nothing to me.  Probably most useful for Super GMs with a masochism complex.

Good Chess Books for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-books-for-beginners-and-beyond