How come Silman suggests that you are 1400 before reading Reasess Your Chess

The full book title is How To Reassess Your Chess. I had to shorten it because the topic space wouldn't let me type that long of a question. Do you even need to be a 1400 player to read it? If so, why?

Couldn't find Silman's explanation but Coach Heisman thinks you should be over 1700:

How To Reassess Your Chess and the How to Reassess Your Chess Workbook– Jeremy Silman – How to use imblances to figure out what to do. The books I would recommend after reading Amateur’s Mind.  See Silman's recommendations on book order. The first 52 pages of HTRYC (3rd ed) is much more basic than the remainder. The 4th ed. of HTRYC is clearer and more focused. Recommended once you no longer play "Hope Chess" and lose material to unseen threats (USCF 1600+)

Encyclopedia of

Here's a link to Coach Heisman's web site and book recommendations:

http://danheisman.home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Events_Books/General_Book_Guide.htm#anthologies

What does he mean by hope chess?

Playing moves that rely on the opponent not finding the best response, instead of playing the strongest moves.

Not checking to make sure your move is safe.  For example you make a threat only calculating the piece moving back but it goes up threatening stuff instead.  If you saw the threat and why it was bad you'd eliminate it as a candidate.  Hoping someone falls for an unsound sacrifice falls into this category.

Silman recommends it to 1400 and up because below that people need to focus on basic elements such as weak squares, pawns (clear targets of attack), basic endgame technique, various mating and tactical motifs, and king safety. 

That's what people often think, but this is not how Heisman uses the term hope chess.  It's close, but the focus isn't on what the opponent finds, it's on what you have and haven't checked.

As TGOB says (post #5) it's playing a move without checking all the opponent's moves that could possibly refute it right away.  So basically you're playing a move and hoping you don't immediately lose.

I guess I'm semi-hope chess, because when I make a move, I do check to make sure that it is safe, but will play them only for the purpose of hoping my opponent doesn't see it and being able to take advantage of it. Does this still count as hope chess?

This is tempting to do that my level since my opponents usually won't notice it unless its something as obvious as bishop threatens to capture rook. I don't do those kind of moves, but do some other moves hoping my opponent doesn't see the threat.

Well, I'd guess you probably don't check every move for every check and capture your opponent can play.  That's that Hesiman was talking about.  Most people check sometimes.  But it only takes one careless move to lose a piece (and if your opponent is not a beginner then you'll also lose the game).

Here's a random game I looked at of yours.  You won, but on move four you lost a bishop.  In fact his knight takes bishop is the only capture / check on the whole board.  (Well, I guess there was also knight takes c2 for example, which I initially didn't notice was a capture and a check, so yes, experience does block out moves from your sight eventually, but in the beginning you need to increase vision).

http://www.chess.com/livechess/game?id=677573410

And that's the difference.  Playing a threat and hoping your opponent doesn't see it doesn't lose the game if your hope is wrong.  Playing a move while ignoring captures and checks can lose the game immediately.  IIRC Heisman says even players at 1500 USCF (so like, 1700-1800 chess.com online rating) don't yet have the habit to do this for every move, every game.  As Heisman points out your opponent could have mate in 1, without checking you don't know, essentially you're hoping you don't lose the game next move.

One recent sports analogy I could come up with that best represents the "are you ready for Silman" question the OP refers to:

Ice Hockey (or just Hockey for people unaware of any other variant!)

Trying to actually learn + play the Hockey part without really getting good at the whole "skating"  thing leads to disaster (and quite possibly a youtube video of what you were doing precisely before you had to be rushed to the Emergency room).

Of course, the skating refers to playing "tactically safe" non-Hope chess which most 1600+ Federation players start to get better with (how much better is up in the air!)

because Reassess Your Chess presupposes proficiency in tactics at least at that level. 

I played move 4 very quickly. I was automatically thinking that he lost the pawn after moving the knight since that's what happens when the N from c6 wasn't there anymore. I just always that that move meant free pawn until today. One of my problems is dealing with the 30 0 time control. It isn't enough time, so I try to make my moves quickly in the opening and missed it. But thanks for reminding me about that game.

I wasn't trying to be mean by reminding you of the game.  It's honesty the first one I clicked on.

Playing too quickly, assuming a recapture, assuming a defensive move, I looked but I just didn't see it, the reason doesn't really matter

In this game (I cut the end off) you gave away a knight two moves in a row (16 & 17).  The first time it wasn't take because both you and your opponent assumed a recapture.  I don't know why it wasn't taken the second time.

Again not trying to be mean.  I think players up through 1600 USCF assume recaptures regularly so this is actually a really useful thing to be aware of IMO.

Thank you. That is one kind of hope chess I do is sacrificial hope chess. I didn't think you were trying to be mean, you're just trying to make me a better player.

You should study endgames first if you don't know what to do with a few pieces on the board then what about 32?! The Middle Game and the Opening have to be studied in relation to the endgame everything fits together and is a complete whole.

Your job is to draw the connection.

I have one of Silman's books (The Complete Book of Chess Strategy) and I can understand his recommendation that you be at a certain level before reading his books. His teaching platform appears to be based on the assumption that you are at that level already. As for myself, an admitted newbie to chess, I first found the book I mentioned above to be quite overwhelming... It was like reading gibberish. But given enough time playing the game (and learning chess notation so it is more like a second language!) his book has begun to make a more valuable impact for me. I'm still a newbie, but at least I am beginning to grasp what he is writing about. In other words, I think he's trying to warn folks who just learned chess from playing their brother-in-law at their last holiday party from buying the books and expecting to comprehend the material.