The easiest way to simplify calculation or what ever your thinking technique , or proper plan is to simply know the openings you play! You achive this by knowing the ideas behind your openings in other words what sort of pawn structures develope as a result of certain variations, tactical possiblities, positional concepts, middlegame plans for both sides, & typical endgames reached! This is done by not just studying opening theory (it helps) but it is done by studying IM & GM games involving your openings! PLay as many as possible!!!!!!!!! AFter doing this you will know what you need to study!!!!! You are wasting your time if you are mucking about with bishops of oppostie colors if that situation doesn't occur in your openings middlegame! Or your wasting time if you are studying minor piece endgames if they don't occur! CHess is filled with too many rules & techniques  as it is so why waste your time with the ones you won't encounter! Study your opening inside & out and figure all the tactical possiblities, positional plans, and common endgames!

By taking the above approach calculation, formulation of plans, etc. becomes almost second nature! I think in chess we suffer from too much information! I belive in GM Mecking's advice that chess players should devote the majority of their study time on their openings of choice! It saves time both over the board and off...belive me!!!!! As one switches openings he is exposed to new tactical themes, positional concepts, pawn structures, & what not....so you become familiar with them as a whole! This is how chess knowledge is aquired. 

You may say if you belive in this sort of thing why study all of the books mentioned in your original posts.....well its simple...I'M only focusing on concepts that occur in my openings....it shaves my study time and is just a darn practical approach to this crazy game!

Hey! Just gear your game to a Karpov/Petrosian positional style and you can reduce your overall calculation time over the board by at least a good margin! Everytime your opponent wants to complicate things=simplify. I'M finding as I study that the positional aspects of the game seem more appealing to me! The slow python like crush or winning ugly as some like to put it! It is a relief to know their is an avenue a player can take and have great success (Petrosian/ Karpov/Nimzo). As far as taatical play is concerned, unless you are a very strong calculator or you are gifted in this regard...forget about top level play! So, come on in and explore the wonders of positional play!

Quote:


Of course, but he should start with something similar to Silman....
We all learn to crawl before we walk, dont we..?

To me Castlerocks 
@"That is, it is better not to go near Silman's Imbalance...."
...is a very strong statement that I find hard to accept.
Maybe I will, someday.

Quote:


Oh.... I thought there were no pieces... 
Then I agree.

Btw, this is kind of an exception: If the board were full of pieces, "h1" would be a nice home for the king. But, in an ending it would be silly to move to h1....

On the Silman-Watson controversy:

Even for poor Joe Chess a common sense approach must prevail. Before one can deviate from a guideline, one must have understood it fully. A chess guideline is not a mathematical formula. On every level it is handy to keep that in mind. Someone who rigidly stucks to a certain guideline (like doubled pawns are always bad), limits his/her own creativity.
So Joe Chess still can read Watson's book.

Thank you, Castlerock. 
I think what you means is: It all depends...!

You must have read Watson's "Secrets of Modern Chess Strategy"!
I have not, but did read Silmans ( ) review of his book and found it very suitable here. Some excerpts:

"I can only guess that this chess anti-Christ  doesn't quite understand what he's doing to the ordinary player. There's poor Joe Chess: He learns the basic rules, and takes to heart the golden bits of advice that we all grew up on: "Avoid bad bishops!" scream the classicists. Watson quotes grandmaster Suba: "Bad bishops protect good pawns." He then implores us to give those bad bishops the love they so desperately deserve."

"This gets to the core of what's happening in chess, and why writers such as myself are often looked upon as priests--as handlers of the holy chess truths. Now this renegade international master has exposed me (and others of my ilk!) as a false priest."

" Instead, he wants you to be aware of how chess should really be played. He wants you to think on your own and step beyond what you've been told. Backing his arguments up by numbers and percentages, the fact-numbed reader might think that he has no other option than to acquiesce to Watson's point of view. But is Watson's truth beneficial to non-professional players? I honestly don't think it is. Beginners, needing a foundation upon which to start, should embrace those rules and ignore John's intellectual ravings. Stronger players, however, will do themselves a favor by savoring everything Watson has said, and running it all through their mind for quite a long time."


Still I think it is necessary to really know the basics, like good/bad bishops and understand that a bad bishop can be good...++ ("good" & "bad" is really just definitions...)

Of course there are exceptions (as Silman also "mentions"  ), but that is what they are: exceptions. I don't see why guidelines are "bad", as long as you know that they are guidelines. But that may be hard to forget ...(which is your point, as I see it) 


Btw, I really didnt understand why you wanted to shift your King to "h1"(!?) in your example...

I’m not sure I can explain properly. Still I’ll try. Let me ask a few questions.

Is Irish c pawn structure good or Bad?

Is it correct to surrender Double B pretty early in the game, like you do in Nimzo or French?

Is it correct to move the Bishop three times in less than ten move like we do in Ruy Lopez or Armenian Variation of French?

Well, you can’t answer any one of the question purely based on the accepted opening principles. Chess is much more complex than that. We can’t even decide whether BDG is good or bad. 

I’m not competent to base my arguments based on Silman’s methodology. So let me try it with Pawn Structure Chess. Let’s say black has queen side majority and White has central majority like we get in QGD. Lets assume visualize the standard pawn structure. Black has pawns on a,b,c,e,f,g and h files and white has pawns on a,b,d,e,f,g and h. Let’s say Kings are on g1 and g8. If there are no pieces on the board, black’s Queen side majority will be very difficult to handle. Hence black should strive for simplification, retain the queen side majority and get a break thro’ in the queen side with c5. White should strive to retain as many pieces on the board and start rolling it’s central pawns. That’s why white strives for e4 in QGD. Suppose, as black I try for exchanges and go behind white pieces. I might lose the game since my pieces might become uncoordinated. Now let me assume white doesn’t have d pawn and black doesn’t have e pawn. (six pawns each) My impulse would be to shift my king to h1 and start a pawn march with e and f pawn instead of d and e pawn since I still have central majority.

Now this helps at lower levels. After all, I have a plan and my opponent may not have any! This is absolutely insufficient for growth. Chess doesn’t have strict rules. There are only guidelines and general principles. These approaches tend to make them as rules instead of guidelines. That’s my primary objection. It’s a cult. You get attracted by a principle and it definitely helps you in the short run. No questions about that. Over a period we tend to believe it is the only truth around. This can only be bad in the long run. You can take it from a reformed addict of pawn structure cult.

Silman’s is a honorable cult. But a cult all the same.

My second objection to these approaches is philosophical. Chess exists for the sake of chess. It doesn’t exist for pawn structure or imbalances.

Quote:


Because of the polarization of thought process they tend to impart. It’s addictive and like all addictions it will prove to be counter productive in the long run.

I have a similar addiction with pawn structure. I tend to generalize chess based on standard pawn structures. An incurable disease I caught after studying (literally) “Pawn Structure Chess” by Andrew Solits. Sooner or later you hit the wall and it is extremely difficult to break the barrier. Personal experience, basically.

Quote:


Yes. Nothing teaches like one’s own games. Annotation of at least the losses and draws is a must. I should have added that too.