Help Improving?

Actually, they are quite helpful.  Likely more so if your picture is of an attractive woman.

On the fried liver, its actually a well known mistake.

But Justs is 100 % right about studying the ending.  You can never guarantee you will get an opening you want, or how far it will follow theory, but endings come up in most games.

I wouldn't know whether it is a mistake or not. I don't play into it. I play the Na5 lines or the Traxler. However, the last published source I glanced at regarding the Fried Liver gave an evaluation of "unclear."

If you're correct, and I'm mistaken, it's something that hasn't been published and it must be due to more up to date/upgraded software.

Anyway, regarding the matter from a practical standpoint, the game will possibly escalate into a memory contest as opposed to skill vs skill. It's highly likely the more studious player will win these games from either side.

I am pretty sure white obtains a winning position in most lines of the Max Lange Attack.

My advice to any young players today would be to study 3.Bc4 (Italian) and 3.d4 (Scotch) instead of the Ruy Lopez.

Also, to those who say study tactics and endgames instead of openings: studying Two Knight's Defense is essentially studying tactics! This is probably the 1 exception to this fundamental rule of chess learning, and the 1st opening anyone should study.

Two Knights Defense is a labyrinth of concrete tactical solutions where most variations have been worked out to absolute certainty; usually due to positions of inevitable checkmate or extremely lopsided material imblances.

There are few lines that lead to positions with any play left ... at the highest level. Of course, chess is an entirely different game at amateur level.

strongly disagree,

BUT it is always a little hard to figure out what to say.  the Best advice comes from books.  and the best way to improve is Study;  working through tactics, endgames,and annotated games to try to understand how to play like a master and NOT a patzer.

for most people, if they are not studying (and many DON'T) I would say there chance to improve - espacially past 1200 - is 0.

unless your a kid

in which case I would say Some slow improvement is Inevitable (if you keep playing)...

<sigh> Here we go again...

After looking over some of your games, i would suggest what i always suggest:

1. Follow opening principles

Control the center.

Develop minor pieces toward the center.

Castle.

Connect your rooks.

2. Tactics...tactics...tactics...

3. Basic endings

KP endings.

Opposition.

KQ vs. K

KR vs. K

KRR vs. K

Youre missing simple tactics, dropping pieces, and not following opening principles.  You arent at the point of worrying about developing a plan.  The fact that you dont know what to do if you cant attack speaks volumes.  

I recently bought the book "the complete book of chess strategy" by Jeremy Silman, but I find it so difficult to absorb anything from it.. There are not enough diagrams for me to follow and I don't know what to take from the suggestions. Are there an books that you can recommend that are easier to follow?

Book recommendations have been a suprisingly contention issue recently.

I'm not particularly high rated, but I have A ton of books and I enthusiastically recommend Heisman, who, in my opinion, is a good deal more direct, and succinct then silman.

there is a certain regular that despises most recent authors (and particularly silman/heisman) and is sure to rant against him.  

You may read the rivalry in another thread.  but one thing I would add; it is odd to wrap silman and heisman in the same category- as they have such a different writing style.  IMHO, Heisman is Much easier to understand, and makes points that are both insightful and accessable.

My comment is not based on any red hot theory.  Maybe the opposite.

Long ago when I was learning, I learned that after-

1e4 e5

2N-f3 N-c6

3 B-c4 N-f6

4 N-g5 d5

5 ed  Nxd5?

White can either go into the Fried Liver with Nxf7 or play 6 d4ed 7O-O 

threatening the same sacrifice in an improved form.

I suspect that in the interim the theory on this has been revisitted.  For a GM, with a GMs preparation and defensive ability playing this may well be fine.

I like to think I have more defensive ability than most players my level, but still think playing such a position willingly is bonkers.

I think at most levels playing for the Fried Liver is being optimistic.  Only the most incompetent will allow it, who you can beat anyway.

Possibly helpful:

Simple Attacking Plans by Fred Wilson (2012)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090402/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review874.pdf

Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev (1957)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf

The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played by Irving Chernev (1965)

https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/most-instructive-games-of-chess-ever-played/

Winning Chess by Irving Chernev and Fred Reinfeld (1949)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708093415/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review919.pdf

Discovering Chess Openings by GM Johm Emms (2006)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140627114655/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/hansen91.pdf

Openings for Amateurs by Pete Tamburro (2014)

http://kenilworthian.blogspot.com/2014/05/review-of-pete-tamburros-openings-for.html

Chess Endgames for Kids by Karsten Müller (2015)

https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/chess-endgames-for-kids/

A Guide to Chess Improvement by Dan Heisman (2010)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708105628/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review781.pdf

Why thank you for all of those suggestions.  I'll take a gander at them.

You're going to have to ignore most of these book suggestions.

if he wanted to ignore book selections, why would he ask?

and why is yblai's book selection SO Clearly wrong?

What REALLY gets me about book hating- is HOW can you Say a book you didn't like is SO awful that there's no ways its instructive to someone you know NOthing about.

for all you Know, that book your hating- is the PErfect one for the op.

FWIW,do you know HOW many hours I've just browsed books at amazon?  if you really want a zillion opinions, start reading reviews.

and amazon reviewers are Possibly more contentious and argumentative than Chess.com-ers.

... if I were advising the OP I would tell him/her to make their own minds up and try to get specifics about the book in question instead of generic dislike (which tells him/her nothing..)

Two great books that explain how master chess players think and form plans on every move:

"Logical Chess, Move by Move" — by Irving Chernev

and

"Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking" — by Neil McDonald

Keep playing and learning!

yes, I can't imagine anyone hating on the Chernev book particularly, and it has a long history of helping patzers play better.

but on here Blunderlots, even honored classics are not immune to be hated.  personally I feel like there's ALOT of great books- just some "speak to me" more than others.

Definitely. Some books work well for some, others work better for others. To each their own!

What gets me is how I can make one statement and someone can put so many words in my mouth and assume so much about me, yet they are accusing me of making assumptions.