My coach does not like Jeremy Silman...

With all dew respect....maybe it's just you. 

J&P and SC are good as well...but really, 1300 - 1600 is a really good range for Reassess.

Reassess does present things in 'isolation', then shows how work together. That's you 'play' chess.

Maybe it is just me. Like I said, others' mileage may vary.

Anyway, it is clear that there are many, many better books than Silman's works for chessplayers at any level, on any part of the game one wishes to study. 

Perhaps. I'm not talking about any other book than Reassess, some of the others I like less.

If you look at GM's commenting on games, they often make note of the imbalances...don't see them quoting ideas from all that many other books designed for the avg/low level player. Consider that.

There aren't that many (macro-level) themes in the middlegame: 

Quantitative Pawn Majority

Minority Attack

Open Files

Half-open files

Outpost/Strong square/Weak square/Hole

Space Advantage

Color Complexes

Weak Pawns

Attack on the king: uncastled; same side; opposite sides

Minor piece considerations: Strong knight/bad bishop; bishop pair; etc.

When a player has seen enough good, well-explained examples of these themes, they will understand them and will be able to determine which one or two will dominate a given position -- and play accordingly. No confusing checklist.

As has been said by others, don't fall into the trap of thinking the classic textbooks are "hard to understand" (I'll grant you Nimzowitsch and Kmoch aren't easy, but I don't usually recommend those). They were written to facilitate understanding, and this goes back to works by Steinitz, Lasker, and Tarrasch. The verbose authors weak players love so much actually make things tougher to understand.

Dvoretsky and such things are not textbooks; they are analytical works. Steer clear unless you are very strong.

"... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable; ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)

stupid logic, is not it? solving basic tactics all the time will not increase tactical or visualization ability.

The quote was in the context of two books that presented middlegame ideas.

Silman started using the term "imbalances" for what was known since Steinitz as "elements".

I am not a native English speaker but it seems to me that the word "imbalances" is misused and abused in this context. I am OK with it when describing the material advantage. But I don't understand why to apply it for open files for example. Here is a position from "Mastering Chess Strategy" by Hellsten:

Open file here is one of the most important positional elements to take into consideration but why to call it "imbalance" - nobody has gained a control of it yet.

Chess Glossary defines an imbalance as a difference between positions of the white and black pieces. I never start analysing a position by looking at differences (except for material). I start by trying to understand what are most important elements, traits, features. Only later I might look from the point of view of "differences" in a search for additional hints.

Thank you, thank you, thank you. But I doubt many will listen.

This is the first time that I hear someone criticizing Nunn for "talk talk talk and not getting to the point", he is often accused of being too succinct and economical in his prose.

Watson is definitely a worse offender, but I have never taken to Nunn's books either. Maybe it's just me.

btw RYTC 4th edition is a completely different book compared to 3rd, Silman should have called it something else. He did walk away from the imabalance based analysis system. And yes, Pachman's classic and highly regarded work has the same concept of imbalance, so following your reasoning Modern Chess Strategy would deserve some of the same criticism but I find it odd that those who hate on Silman rarely say anything bad about Pachman, ok Silman was not original but tell me which strategy book from the last 80 years has been original?

I hear you about Nunn but in terms of explanatory prose he's at the other side of the spectrum compared to Silman, so I would have thought he's right up your alley, Nunn is famous for being very succinct, clear, accurate and to the point and for those reasons typically recommended for advanced players.

Quick search of 4th edition PDF for "imbalance" returns 283 entries. It doesn't look like  he walked away from the imabalances.

If like you say the 4th edition is a completely different book it doesn't sound good at all. I am not aware of any chess classics book that had to undergo a complete rewrite at some point.

Pachman in "Modern Chess Strategy" has a small chapter (about 6 pages) called "The Equillibrium of the Position and its Disturbance" that talks about something that reminds of "imbalances". Otherwise he uses terms like "character of the position", "peculiarities", "factors" - no attempts to apply same gimmick for every situation.

And if you think the term "imbalances" is so great please tell me how should I explain the importance of the "c" file to my student in this position:

While "c" file is not controlled by any side there is no imbalance regarding it, after one side gains control of this file (without compromising anything else) then "advantage" is a much better term.

Taking Silman's own definition:

An imbalance is any significant difference in the two respective positions

I'll try to formulate what bothers me about the use of this term:

1. It stresses the difference as a first thing to look at in any position while we have to put forward what is significant (elements, traits, patterns etc.)

2. It's obvious that white's and black's positions are different, mentioning it again and again just introduces some noice without any additional information. A statement "white has an extra pawn but is behind in development" is sufficient, it talks about important traits of position. What's the point of saying the obvious about how this difference creates an imbalance?

This thread has been running so long that his coach might like Silman now.

He Better by now

I am not sure which Silman book you are referring to here...but it's pretty easy to explain.

Yes, there is the simple Bishop vs Knight imbalance...the better pawn structure for White - weakended d5 pawn on a WHITE suare...the misplaced Rook on e5....better coordinated pieces in general.

But the c-file is even more important than the obvious imbalances...because White can gain better play on/control of it and that will make the other imbalances even more sensitive. If White can make better use of the only fully open file, then you have to say that is an imbalance in his favor. When some pieces get exchanged on it, the d pawn will be even more weak.

Consider 1. Rac1 (or Bh3) Rc8 contesting the file. 2. Bh3 (or Rc2 straight away), hitting Rc8. So Black might play...Rc7 to try and keep the file contested. White then can play Rc2 with the idea of Rfc1. This in one move order or another. White can even threaten to play b5 and plant a Rook on c6 in some lines.

It all adds up to a better position for White...much better. The more imbalances in your favor, the better! Frankly, if this position occurred in a modern super-GM tournament where you see the GM's going over it for the press afterwards and Kramnik was on the White side, he would quickly see and point out all these I am sure. He would not say "as Pachman" or "as Euwe said"...no, he would point out these imbalances and with a dismissive wave of his hand point out what white should do because of them.

lol

Want to know more on mr. shllman's Patent USP?bay his books!!