Would You Recommend How to Reassess Your Chess by Silman?

I can agree with you on that, but then you are conceding the point and have essentially answered the original question asked by the thread-starter: "Would you recommend Silman's book?"...

If you are rated over 2000 FIDE, it is pointless to read it (Silman's intended audience is 1400-2100 USCF). 

If you are rated under 2000, then you are better off working on your concrete knowledge of chess (tactics, mates, endgames, even opening repertoire since those are more "factual" than a 1900-level players "educated guess"). 

I may read Silman's books out of curiosity, but now I know that learning the concrete of tactics and endgames is the only way I will get better.   An analysis of my games (and of others in the <2000 range) would reveal such. 

Addendum: The mistakes made by those of us in Silman's intended range are not mistakes of "principles" but rather concrete (tactics, endgames).

Higher rated players require "higher-rated" strategy. They also use non-tactical move choice mechanisms. (In the game I gave as an example, both players are about 2000 rating, also one of them is a FM, but they use strategical reasoning: http://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-showcase/my-first-win-against-a-titled-player-fm?ncc=1) I haven't read the book, but if it's targeted at <2000 rating players, so be it; this doesn't mean there are no good strategy books for stronger players. Maybe someone could suggest one.

lol, mine? Thanks . That's so sweet. But I don't think integrity is a synonym for "general."

I'm not sure if you understand what my particular thesis is, but I do think strategy is a definite part of the game, for practical purposes. We use it to predict and explain what we can't yet calculate. The problem is, when you're not good at tactics, you end up executing your plan in an inaccurate way, or worse, hang a piece while you're executing that plan.

My problem has always been the latter. I would always make a good plan, but tactically I wouldn't execute it well enough. A lot of times when one has a crushing position but the other is desperately defending, a violent combination is required to finally break down the defenses. If this "killer blow" can't be seen, then the hard work was all for nothing.

Silman just doesn't warn you enough about what happens when you don't see tactics. Yes, his book is about planning. But he presents it as a way to approach the game in general, but as such it's not sufficient, as you need to find tactically sound moves in order to execute your plan in the most dangerous way. Silman, in his thinking technique, does include calculating at the end, but it's more like "ok, do what you have to do," when in reality, it's probably the most important part of the process, because if you don't go through with your plan correctly, what good was the plan?

I love to move my pieces around. In this game I move my knight from d7 to b8 (in order to go to c6), and the very next move go back to d7!

http://www.chess.com/echess/game.html?id=47070399

I am pretty positional in nature. That's why I play the french. But I try not to let that make me develop a bias towards it. In fact, it seems that recapturing with the knight was bad since it just got attacked; Qf2 was a hidden little move that I unfortunately overlooked. I guess it has some positional and tactical elements to it, but especially tactical in nature is spotting such a cute little move, kind of like finding waldo, or spotting a discolored pixel.

So, my position as usual is in the grey area. Hope that cleared things up.

Looking for good moves in chess books, is like playing football by visiting

the popcorn stand.

Actually this reply was not targeted to you (I even haven't quoted something you said). You shouldn't suggest so, moreover I had replied to you in the previous post thoroughly, because I see you want to have a discussion, and I believe you deserve to receive more thorough answers than this one. I could have included it in that post if I meant you. I think whoever needs to recognise himself as the addressee will do so, and I needn't be anymore specific, neither to pay him more attention than he pays to the discussion. Sorry if you have felt offended, but this was not at all my purpose towards you.

Now on the topic: Strategy is more about reducing the variations that should be examined (or keeping the seemingly better ones) than about finding an exact way to go. Even if one doesn't find the most suitable tactics to achieve a strategy, he can use other ones that match his overall game development plan. That's what is good about strategy - you needn't limit yourself to an exact variation, neither you need to make sure it will go exactly the same way you suggested (therefore you needn't spend so much efforts in exact calculation). This gives your game more flexibility and opportunities to both drive the game into different variations and to respond to a broader variety of your opponent's actions.

That's why although strategy is general and it may seem inappropriate or difficult to apply it in particular moves, in fact it makes playing the game easier and allows one to have a better game development control.

Ok, I apologize . I wasn't sure who it was directed at. I thought maybe you had found my post prior to that statement "stupid" or something.

The game of chess in general is so complex that we are constantly trying to impose some order on it to make it a playable game in human terms.  Chess strategy ,opening theory, and positional chess are some of the best tools we have to do so, even if they are sometimes undercut and made useless by those ever present tactics that make the game a joy and a headache at the same time.  However, some players evidentally  prefer to view the game exactly one move at a time, with no reference to any sort of planning, finding the best move at all times with the aid of their silicone assistants.  Good luck with that, good positions usually lead to good outcomes and bad, chaotic positions usually lead to bad outcomes.  Of course, there is always the chance to save a lost game and swindle the opponent, but hardly something to count on.  That's called desperation.

I am surprised Kohai hasn't locked this down by now.

Please note that person is not me. Two ii's in the name, not one.

Then it would seem that someone has "stolen" your identity corrijean. Besides the two "ii"s they have only just become a member of chess.com (Member since Nov 6, 2011). It's also obvious that english is not their 1st language. Although given the stupidity of their comment ... maybe it is.

It's a little creepy - you should report them.

edit: Well that didn't take long - I guess someone was watching

That someone is a well known troll here who has had many, many accounts and should be permanently removed from the site without prejudice.

How is permant "without prejucice"?

Er, with extreme prejudice.

Oops.

I think you've gotten your legal and military terms confused Grobe.  The person we're talking about should have their account closed "With prejudice" - meaning they have absolutely no recourse to another hearing or higher "court" whilst attempting to bring the same "action". In other words chess.com rescinds their account and they have zero recourse. Bye By Baby!

If it was "Without prejudice" they would have a chance to make their case in another action. Basically taking it up the line etc.

"Extreme Prejudice" is a military euphemism for targeted assassination.

Oh! Maybe you were joking.

Yes -- I'd initially meant to say with prejudice, not without.

We knew what you meant but you know how chess players are- mistakes must be punished!

Naturally -- with extreme prejudice.

Interested in any views on the post sent. Best wishes. T