Your question was not about reading a whole book? Then it's a waste of money.
Ever encountered advice like this?
"... To begin with, only study the main lines ... you can easily fill in the unusual lines later. ..." - GM John Nunn (2007)
Ok, as long as you're using it as "begin opening study" and not as "begin learning chess." If you're using that to support begin chess by learning main lines then I disagree.
Better to buy a game collection and use the whole book.
So, with regard to reading a whole book of games, it is not a problem that a beginner would "get a lot more out of going over those games if" the beginner "knew basics first"? (#50)
Certainly I would apply my advice to all game collections. My point was just that if you are going over game collections, then make it a variety of games. I still suggest basics first.
I regret not playing over games? Yes.
My question was about whether or not you expressed regret about not playing over games "as a beginner". (See #26.)
Yes, I regret that.
I also regret wasting my time on opening books.
Could it be that your problem was "trashy database dump" books? (#32)
I read Kosten's English book and most of Watson's French book. I think they're regarded as good ones. I would have rather started with a tactics book and something like Pachman's Modern Chess Strategy.
Do I think people are 7 years olds wanting to be pro? No, but the point is what kind of training is most useful, and what kind is just for fun.
Are "most useful" and "for fun" the only two categories? Doesn't "useful" depend on the person doing the training?
Sure, "useful" depends on the person doing the training. Not to the extent that bad training works, but like I said before if you're studying openings ostensibly by studying entire games, then sure, IMO that would work.
Sure I could suggest to the OP the elephant gambit. ...
Has anyone here proposed suggesting the elephant gambit to DeathTank3?
No, but that would be an opening I'd suggest if I felt like giving him a gambit. That and the scotch gambit. Danish gives black too many options. Same thing for king's gambit.
... I prefer to give advice for long term improvement.
Doesn't it matter how much improvement is sought and at what pace?
Yes. That's why I fully expect the OP to ignore my advice if he doesn't like it, and scroll down to the next guy's comment.
But I want to be fair - I'm not sure exactly what "positional play" is, as you've defined.
For me, anything thats unfavorable in activity is bad, and vice versa, and you can usually tell who's more active or not. Also, activity compensates weaknesses, so that allows you to use activity there too.
If kids are having trouble developing, then yeah they need to learn positional play.
But what's far more common, I've seen, I that players who could play very decent positional chess, if they only thought *simpler*, play very weird moves that are positionally bad, because they learned some very specific, and often advanced positional idea, and are trying to apply it. Instead of developing or improving their vest piece, they try to play around with weaknesses or specific trades or something, and end up getting bad positions. I actually do this sometimes.
That's the danger in positional play - it has been heavily convoluted by a lot of advanced ideas not suitable for anyone under a decent rating, say 1600 or something.
I believe Silmans rather not too advanced ideas in his book imbalances is meant for 1400+, and honestly I think he's trying to make the book accessible, and it should be higher.