user38: Most chess literature offer sets of moves based on themes, but do not offer a method of accessing your performance in composing sets of moves relative to the flow of the game itself. 
What would be the best way to segment sets of moves, and then assess the effectiveness of their composition relative to the board's state?

user44: I would try breaking your games down by sub-goals and examine the moves leading up to achieving that sub-goal which gives you an easy metric on how well the set of moves performed.  Of course, the harder part is to assess your sub-goals.  Did you have the right overall plan?  Did your sub-goals improve your position?  I'm not sure if breaking your evaluation down to the "set of moves" level will ultimately be useful.
For instance, you can set a sub-goal of controlling the c-file so the set of moves that contribute to doubling the rooks on the c-file evaluate as "good".  However, if your opponent is invested in an attack on the king-side, your sub-goal might be faulty.
Take a look at some middlegame books, games collections, and/or tournament books.  Try something like IM Jeremy Silman's "How To Reassess Your Chess" and/or GM Bronstein's annotations of the Zurich 1953 tournament.
The former will give you some ways to approach thinking about your position and formulating goals while the latter will delve into the thought process behind the moves of real games of grandmasters.

38: <p>Most chess literature offer sets of moves based on themes, but do not offer a method of accessing your performance in composing sets of moves relative to the flow of the game itself. </p>

<p>What would be the best way to segment sets of moves, and then assess the effectiveness of their composition relative to the board's state?</p>
 44: <p>I would try breaking your games down by sub-goals and examine the moves leading up to achieving that sub-goal which gives you an easy metric on how well the set of moves performed.  Of course, the harder part is to assess your sub-goals.  Did you have the right overall plan?  Did your sub-goals improve your position?  I'm not sure if breaking your evaluation down to the "set of moves" level will ultimately be useful.</p>

<p>For instance, you can set a sub-goal of controlling the c-file so the set of moves that contribute to doubling the rooks on the c-file evaluate as "good".  However, if your opponent is invested in an attack on the king-side, your sub-goal might be faulty.</p>

<p>Take a look at some middlegame books, games collections, and/or tournament books.  Try something like IM Jeremy Silman's "<a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/1890085138" rel="nofollow">How To Reassess Your Chess</a>" and/or GM Bronstein's annotations of the <a href="http://rads.stackoverflow.com/amzn/click/0486238008" rel="nofollow">Zurich 1953</a> tournament.</p>

<p>The former will give you some ways to approach thinking about your position and formulating goals while the latter will delve into the thought process behind the moves of real games of grandmasters.</p>
