Kingpatzer wrote:
-- do you think like a tree?"
Yes, I actually do. I just don't search the tree in grades of "depth" (first 1ply, then 2ply, 3 ply and so on), but rather follow every interesting line until I evaluate a resulting position as quiescent and better than in the best line I have already searched (then it is my new "king of the hill), or worse (then I discard it). Ideally, I do this until I'm confident about the move I'm going to make. Sometimes, of course, I instead get tired, distracted etc. and then I'm likely to play crap.
Anyway, I agree that Kotov's advice is not practicable - that's why I said I don't do go down the tree all branches one ply, then all branches two plys etc. But even in the "king of the hill"-method, the lines still have a branching tree structure.
. Checkout these 
In my limited experience, no one thinks systematically all the time.
Certainly, but the thing is we should nevertheless at least try to. The reward is that we will get less and less surprised by what our opponent plays on his next move.
I'm not at all convinced that your conclussion follows from the observation.
As Tisdall quotes Lein in his book "Improve Your Chess Now!", "I don't think like a tree -- do you think like a tree?"
Of course Lein is talking about Kotov's tree of analysis. But I think the point is extensible to all fabled "thought processes" that proport to solve all the ills of the average chess player.
I don't dispute the utility of psychological tools such as a systematic framework to help stem bad habits. I do dispute that the utilization of such systematic frameworks on every move is desirable for best performance.