Yusupov's series from Quality Chess

Which you choose not to state?

Think very many are likely to feel obliged to use language as approved by NM ghost_of_pushwood because of a ("general") reason that NM ghost_of_pushwood chooses not to state?

I recently finished Bellin and Ponzetto and it is great. The first section of the book is about 60 pages on how to analyze a position and formulate a plan. Then 30 positions are presented. For each one, 3 different analyses and plans are proposed and you have to figure out which is best. (To add a bit of spice, I did my own analysis and planning before looking at the proposals.) The answers are 2 pages each, consisting of explanations of the defects in the inferior plans (sometimes there are strategic faults and sometimes they fail tactically) and why the right answer is best. The rest of the game is then given with annotations, so you can see how the plan was carried out.

I haven't studied the Grivas book, but it's on my wish list. A couple of Amazon reviews say that it isn't as good as Bellin and Ponzetto, but the reason given is that it does not contain the detailed explanation of how to analyze a position and make a plan. 

It seems that Bellin and Ponzetto would suit the OP. Also of possible interest are "Test Your Chess Skills" by Guliev and "Strategic Chess Exercises" by Bricard.

I think it involves a yoga mat.

But seriously, I know how much you love contrived terminology, so let me help out

I like to think of positional as long term non-tactical and strategic as short term non-tactical.

For example Kramnik said Petrosian was known for strategic prowess and Karpov for positional prowess... and that actually Karpov wasn't very good strategically? (I put a question mark because it still sounds weird to me).

Anyway so an exercise that asks you to form long term plans or judge long term ramifications would probably be strategic. Positional would be like, put the rook on the open file because it's good there. Strategy would be put a pawn there because you immobilize his majority which makes further trades towards the endgame unfavorable.

Hey, I'll take any opportunity to blather on, although I'm not as bad as I used to be.

But sure, I know you, see, I started with a joke

I think, in fairness, he was trying to mock my distinction between tactical and positional exercises as to imply that there really is no such distinction, since in chess you always have to consider positional and tactical elements as part of a whole big picture, in every move you make. Hence, I explained the distinction I was drawing. 
As for books on strategy/positional chess, I do have Silman's Reassess book (and the workbook), but I just don't find it as helpful as I thought I would when I bought it. Maybe it's his style of writing that annoys me, with constant attempts at jokes; or maybe it's his lack of clarity and lucidity, but I went through about 1/3 of it and I am not sure I'd go back again to it. *I do prefer authors who are "dry" and lucid in their prose and not try to be comedians. 

Has anyone read Nunn's Understanding Middlegames book, by any chance? Based on reviews and sampling it, I think it has the potential to give me what Silman didn't, but I don't know. I generally like Nunn, even if I ignore some of his computer aided analytical lines. 

To me Silman's system comes off as a bit contrived to be honest. Some of the explanations feel like he's trying to stuff a complex position into a nice little square hole he's chiseled out for it. "See, this one is about an open file" eh, not really. Like when they say 1.e4 opens the queen.

But his idea of imbalances is great, I think. It helps a noobie think about a position in new ways. To extend the comparison 1.e4 opening the queen hardly matters, but now the student may start thinking in terms of opening lines, or that pieces may be bad because they block other pieces, which are useful things to notice.

Pachman is great.

I'll add that Test your Positional Play Ponzetto and Bellin is great (but last I checked out of print).

Haha, I still have to remind myself sometimes to not do that.

If I know black lost the game then I'll be more critical of any big decisions black made through the game... but then sometimes I find out black was better until move 50 and I feel foolish

I agree about Silman. He def chose many positions neatly to illustrate his concepts and that's rarely the case in real games. I cannot comment about Chernev, because I don't have and never read his books (though read much about them). 

Ultimately, I am slowly coming to the conclusion that the best way to learn all these concepts, tactical/strategic/positional is through well annotated games, that combine a lucid prose with moderate analytical variations. This way, you pick up concepts by osmosis and in the context of real games, rather than cherry picked random positions. 

Basically, my biggest weakness in chess is figuring out a plan. And that stems from my lack of full understanding of strategic and positional evaluations. So if Yusupov's training books provide some of that material, I'd get them. But if much of it is just solving tactical puzzles like here, then I'd rather look elsewhere. 

Hence, I am considering books like: 

- Nunn's UM

- Planning Move by Move (and other from the MBM series, like Rubenstein MBM) 

- Gelfand's Positional decision making 

- And Yusupov training series 

What really helped me was Pawn Structure Chess by Soltis.

The opening example is an all-in sacrificial mating attack by white, and Soltis comments that white knew to choose this plan because the pawn structure dictates it. Then the book is a survey of all the basic structures so you're pretty much learning all the basic plans in chess. It also has example games. I think it's great.

That plus and an endgame book should give you a good ability to plan. At least that's what helped open the door for me. I went from clueless about plans to excited to test out lots of new ideas.

But I assume any book with a lot of good reviews (and written by a good author, I guess I'd prefer a GM) will give you new ideas, and that's what it's really about I think. You get new ideas, and now every time you play or analyze a game you get to test them out.

I haven't read Soltis (and don't have him), but the reviews of his books seem to be sub-par. Seems like he writes many many books, which I think is a minus. I'd rather get authors who take their time and dive deeply into their material than put out one book after another. Having said that, I know the Pawn Structure chess is pretty famous, and supposedly high quality, so I may consider it. 

Has anyone tried any of the Everyman's MBM series books? Particularly, by Zenon Franco? 

Soltis books are either very good or very bad, it seems. "Pawn Structure Chess" is excellent.

That's helpful. 

Do you know his book on Calculation by any chance? Is that any good?

That's another very good one, called "The Inner Game of Chess". That book, Pawn Structure Chess, and one more Soltis book -- How to Choose a Chess Move -- have taken my understanding of chess to a new level. That last one, though, is out of print and can be kind of pricey.

Yep, I read it around 1600 USCF and it really bridged the gap for me from random calculation of tactics to something more long term. Like I've always said... that and Dvoretsky's endgame book.

I read them back to back actually. I was spending about 4 hours a day at that time. Really helped a lot.