Which book to read?

You could argue that calculation is really two parts, visualization+evaluation.  Without either, the calculation is meaningless and it takes precision in both to be the best.

Computers don't need to evaluate before hand, because they can indiscriminately look at each variation, with... well... the speed of a computer.  Among humans though, I think even those who would try to suggest they calculate first and evaluate later are getting their candidate moves from some sort of initial or running evaluation, even if it's somewhat subconsciously... and it doesn't help the amateur improve to simply say, well this move is obvious to me.

So how does the GM or IM or FM know to look at Rxg6 and somehow knows that Ne4 doesn't work and isn't worth calculating?  How do any of us play blitz or give simuls with any measure of skill without doing tons of calculation?  The best blitz player isn't the person who can calculate the fastest, but the person with the best understanding (best evaluations), in this way their calculations are more efficient.  This is partly the reason I call it streamlining.

In the end though, we may have to agree to disagree on it, and that's fine.

Alexander Kotov long ago recommended that while it is your opponent's turn, you spend your time assessing the position, and work on developing a long range plan.  After your opponent has made their move, you switch to looking at concrete variations, but still with your plan in mind.

Silman is really meant for beginners who are just starting out, but once you get fairly good at the basics, you should probably be looking at Alexander Kotov, Jonathan Tisdall, John Nunn and Andrew Soltis's books on calculation and how to choose moves.  They give a lot more practical advice about how to go about it.

Silman opens his book reviewing these different methods actually, and points out some holes -- such as Kotov, who does give excellent advice, but when you get to his step that requires you to chose 3 candidate moves, there is no advice on how to go about finding these 3 likely moves.

Silman is for less experienced players, but I wouldn't say for beginners, I think most amateurs (in general, not the 2000-2200 ones) can get a lot out of his books.  Silman has testimony from class A players, and an expert I know has used Silman's books to good effect to fill in some holes and to help make his calculation... well... more efficient actually.

Yeah Silman Rule !

Actually, I think neither Silman nor Dvoretsky criticize Kotov at all; they just summarize Kotov's ideas, in Silman's case in a simplified form.  Tisdall was the first to really criticize Kotov for not going into more detail about how to choose candidate moves or for insisting that each branch only be followed once, and then Nunn and Soltis followed suit.

Jonathan Rowson is another critic of Kotov although he is more focused on how a player's assessment of the position affects their emotions and vice versa.  Alex Yermolinsky also explores the impact of emotions on assessment calculation.

Yeah, he mostly just reviews it, not really criticizes.

I didn't know about the others (e.g. Tisdall being the first to criticize).  I haven't heard of Rowson, that's an interesting topic, assessment and emotions.  I'm interested in how a player can keep a certain level of consistency during tournament play, and keep their play closer to their knowledge (going off of Yermonlinsky's quote "Most chess-players I know, myself included, know chess better than they play it.") and I think that Rowson's focus would be related.

Jonathan Tisdall's Improve Your Chess Now is a fascinating book, I think one of the best manuals on how to organize your thinking when you calculate.  He looks at visualization, how to play in bad positions, the value of the pieces, and offers a lot of practical tips about what kinds of moves to look at first, and in what order depending on the position.  It's similar to Dvoretsky in that he tries to come up with insightful new heuristics, but it is more more concrete and focused on the actual mechanics of how to do things.  Dvoretsky sort of focuses on the solutions, but Tisdall is more interested in how you get there.

Jonathan Rowson's Seven Deadly Chess Sins is also worth a look, although to some extent, he is just trying to explore the ways in which a player can get bogged down if they think they are losing, or overly optimistic if they think they are winning.  It's not really a practical manual per se, but it is an enjoyable read nonetheless.

Yes, we'll have to agree to disagree here, orangehonda.  I think Silman's thinking technique puts too much emphasis on the long-term factors in a position and too little emphasis on the short-term factors.  I find it completely unrealistic, but we do not, apparently, share this view.  :)

I think you should read Josh Waitzkin's "The Art of Learning" (along with chess books which are about technical aspects of course) which focuses on how to become psychologically better at that sort of thing. The gist of what he's saying is summed up by a sportsman who I admire greatly Rafael Nadal when asked how he kept his extraordinary level of focus. "You play how you train". You have to make things like calm focus and remaining in the present your way of life. Josh also gives some insightful techniques into how to be completely ready for a big tournament or game. 

Another thing about Silman is I don't think he makes it clear enough that in a lot of positions it's impossible to make a static evaluation without calculation. But anyway, I don't think such books should necessarily be 100% "the truth" to help greatly. How most players learn is that you learn concepts which take you to a certain level and you refine them, then exceptions, then concepts which prove what you learned at 1st to not be entirely true and it's all a natural part of the process...