chess book with annotated games, for a 1500 rated plaer

Yeah, you can pick individual games.  There are two ways to do it.

1) From the normal Play Like a Grandmaster section, make sure you've imported the games of the grandmaster you want (just click import and select the grandmaster and lucas chess gets a database of their games).  Then you can hit the "One game" button in the starting dialog and you will be presented with a list of games to choose from.  You can see this below:

If the game you want is not available from this method, you can import any game you want from the PGN viewer within Lucas Chess.  Here you can see where to find it in the PGN game selection dialog, which opens every time you open a new PGN:

If you need any more help or have other questions, let me know.

Lucas Chess always seemed unintuitive and "death by features" to me.

To each their own.

pawpatrol: Thanks for the rundown!

You bet!

This is exactly what I've been planning on 'getting into'.  Of course, I'm the laziest chess student ever, no we're all lazy I know.  
But , anyways, I was reading Silman on this topic, and he was saying to just "run through the games quickly, in REAMS, like dozens of games a day if not even hundreds, doing it as fast as you can".  He claimed that after doing this for a while day in, and day out, it would REALLY open your mind up to chess(or however you wanna put it).
I thought it seemed a bit pointless(without analyzing).  Has anyone else studied master games in the manner I claim Silman recommened? 

BigKingBud,

NM Hiesman says something...similar.  Not quite to the extent of just running through them, but don't spend more than about 15 mins per game.  It is about volume more than depth, it seems.

Also, it's better to play through books you *think* are too easy for you.  They aren't really too easy for you.  Just because you can understand a five move combo when a master shows it to you doesn't mean you can find it in a game--if it's two move combos that you miss in real games, then you should be studying basic material.

Irving Chernev is trash

dude, Logical Chess Move by Move by Irving Chernev is one of the best chess books out there.  It helped me out tremendously.  It contains 33 master games, with analysis on each move!  Most chess books contain many variations with little or no explanation.  It also very clearly highlights the mistakes made, and explains why and how the game was won or lost.

Actually, half of the games are master vs. amateur. Nonetheless, I concur that the book is worthwhile.

Chernev is wrong on many counts, but a 1500 player (even a 2000 player) will generally do better heeding his advice than spurning it.

Some errors: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2013/02/chernevs-errors.html 

It's a pretty good book.  He does tend to say a move is bad because it doesn't fit with what he wants to show, even though a strong engine will say the move was fine (or even best).  Especially, he sometimes has an unreasonably strong hate for pushing pawns.  But, if you can ignore that, it's a pretty good book.

@Ziryab

The errors pointed out in the link were made by James Stripes, a USCF 1847 player.  Chernev was a master

In fairness, the errors are quite real and you can find them yourself with Stockfish or anything you like.  He will ?? a move that is just fine.  Then two moves later will be the move that actually cost the game.  And John Nunn said as much, and he is rated well over USCF 1847.  The book is definitely flawed, but still worth looking at.

@RCMorea,

I never said Chernev's book was perfect.  Every book has its flaws, but Chernev's book instills logical reasoning and planning into a beginning/intermediate chess player (including 1500).  

I just do not want to spend time sorting out which parts of Stripes' analysis is right and which is flawed.  I would rather read GM John Nunn's criticism.

do you know where John Nunn said what he said? 

Actually, he was over 1950 USCF when he wrote that, but you still have a point.

These days, of course, even a C player with a computer can find Chernev's errors. Even so, you might read the article. It doesn't attack Chernev.

Chernev's articulate, logical, and precise explanations and reasonings can allow most intermediate chess players to take their game to the next level.  I understand that not all of Chernev's tactics work out.  You guys make good points.

I think that the point Stripes was making was that every reader of Chernev (or Nunn) should seek to verify the claims of the author he or she is reading.

My point in sharing is that Chernev's text is very useful for the budding player as long as it is read critically. I would say the same about Nunn, but I think that most of his work is too advanced for most 1500 players. Chernev is a better fit at that level. 

Amen!

I think he said most of it in the forward of "Grandmaster Chess Move by Move."

I do agree it's a good book for a beginner, most of it is right, and no book is perfect...it's just that I personally remember as a kid saying to myself "but I don't see what's wrong with this move" and even restraining myself from moving pawns in front of the castled king, when it actually would have been right to do so, and now many years later with the benefit of an engine, I realize there actually was nothing wrong with some of those moves.  So maybe it's a little personal to me.  But if you go in knowing that he's harping on certain points to get your attention, and mostly that's a good thing as long as you don't overdo it, you should be fine.

Stripes seems to have a soft spot for Chernev: http://chessskill.blogspot.com/2012/03/my-first-chess-book.html