It's still early in the game and I wouldn't impart too much importance to that variance.
Btw if you can guess half or more of Kramnik's moves, I'd say you're doing pretty well.
PS How is a "beginner like you" a freelance coach? 
Method Suggestions for Game Analysis
Sort:
You're right, I just didn't understand his move. It's a book move, and must have some theory behind it which I don't understand yet, but I'm working on it though. Thanks, too, I thought that at least half was still bad. It's still a far cry from playing like "them" but at least what you said makes it seem better.
P.S.
I call myself a "beginner" since I still have a lost to learn about chess (or I'm not yet a master), and a "free lance coach" since, well, I like helping fellow "beginners", too. I might not be the best coach around, but at least I think by helping others I'm helping myself too. Besides, my "coaching" is free, hahaha. Thanks for checking out my profile.
In your diagram, c5 is a wrong move because of positional reasons. Black's plan is either to push ...e5 ASAP or to attack on the kingside. But 8.c5 :
1- takes off pressure on d5, which helps the ...e5 push (because d5 does not need to be guarded by e6 anymore)
2-makes this pawn (c5) vulnerable : in the case of ...e5 dxe5 he has no more defender ;
3-it abandons the idea to open the c file which is one of the reasons for which White placed the queen on c2. (not a very strong reason, though)
The main problem is that even if this move will be played later (I guess not), playing it now freezes the structure in the center and allows Black to choose his plan accordingly. As long as the pawn is on c4 Black has to take in account both universes where White pushes and White does not pushes, and cannot take decisions that are defavorable in one of those two cases.
If you don't mind about your opening study right now, I'd just start from move 10-15 to do this exercise.
Please give my free program a try, "Guess the Move", which was designed to help you play through master games, checking via a chess engine. It's had roughly 8000 downloads so far. http://www.chess.com/download/view/guess-the-move---chess-training-system
@Irontiger: I see, I suppose my idea of delaying the opponent's development was not as significant as the positional justifications you stated. Also, Kramnik did play it two moves later, forcing the bishop back, but at that point, black was no longer behind in development. But then, how should I handle this? Kramnik plays 8. f3 now while Houdini 1.5 x64 says 8. c5 was the "best" move at the position (which luckily was the move I thought). "Should I modify my approach based on the computer's solution? or should I stick to the master's ideas?"
@Daeru: I'd like to skip the opening stage as much as possible due to the severe permutations there, but skipping the opening would take the opportunity for me to see how the strategy was developed away. This is a great short-cut though, and when exhaustion creeps up, I'd skip the opening right away.
@fredm73: Alright, I'm currently watching your video about the program.
Thank you, all, for your ideas.
[COMMENT DELETED]
I misunderstood the comments 
"Should I modify my approach based on the computer's solution? or should I stick to the master's ideas?"
Depends on the difference between the two evaluations. If the master's move is evaluated at 0.2, and the computer move at 1.5 I would definitely consider the engine's suggestion. But any difference under 0.6 can be readily considered insignificant I think.
Also if this is a winning position (say +3), you don't care too much about the difference.
All in all, I wouldn't mind about the engine's suggestion being better than the master's move. Only if it's the same than your move, it proves that your idea was certainly a good one !
Hm...well, if Kramnik ended up playing c5 I guess it couldn't have been all that wrong.
@hicetnunc: I had similar ideas which led me to 8. c5, though Kramnik played 8. f3 here and then 10. c5 later. Kramnik seems to have this style of keeping positions closed before he could launch a solid attack. Also, I agree that in this position, the take on d5 does opens the position for black since black's pieces would already be aimed at the king's side. Black would have also gained space there.
In the game, also, after c5 black soon played b6, and Kramnik did play b4, and after bxc5 bxc5 and a nearby Rb1, he occupied the open b-file, while maintaining a rather "closed" center. (I no longer remember the move numbers, and I'll have to check my database for this game again.)
So, not being "clear-cut" in this position, I think I should look at positions deeper into the game as suggested by Daeru and apply the method there.
However, for situations like this where the master's move and that of the computer differ, which should I follow to model my thinking process? The master? or the computer?
The master. Especially early on in the game.
I replied too late, by the time my reply was posted there were two new comments, hahaha
I would have to check the evaluation profile, but I'm sure the difference between Kramnik's 8. f3 and the computer's 8. c5 was below 0.5. By the 10th move, however, both Kramnik and the computer agree that 10. c5 was the best move.
Thanks for this one, hicetnunc & AndyClifton, I hope I can maintain this progress. I'll keep these in mind.
I would have played Bd2 0-0-0 Kb1 Rc1 and use the c file as the f file.
- but that's just me.
Looking at it again, maybe after playing f3 to prevent enemy knights going to e4 or g4 with nasty pressure.
Hello everyone. I"m not sure where to post this, but this forum seems to be the most logical place. Recently, I've been analyzing several games to improve my chess, starting from my own and then those of my friends, and finally to some grandmasters.
I've been told that trying to "guess" (or more appropriately "deduce") the next move of the masters is a nice way to improve one's chess. The method basically goes:
1. Look at the position and understand it, checking out the activity of all pieces and the possible strategies and plans developed by each side.
2. Enumerate the candidate moves that would achieve the strategy identified.
3. Through tactics, select the best move.
4. Check the move made by the master and see if it's the move you selected.
5. If the selection was right, then great. If it's wrong, then try to understand why the master made such move and make adjustments to your approach.
6. Repeat for the entire game (or until one of the players acquire a decisive advantage).
Now, for a beginner like me, this is tough, but encouraging. I'm lucky enough to be able to "guess" around 5 to 7 out of 10 moves of Kramnik (for other GMs, like Capablanca, Carlsen or Kasparov, I get lower scores).
However, I made a modification to the said method above: aside from checking the move of the master, I also check the "solution" with a computer. Now here's the problem: once in a while my "wrong guess" was, to my surprise, the solution suggested by the computer.
For example:
Black has just castled. Here, I thought that white's position was a bit cramped. His bishops are blocked, unlike black's active bishop on d6. 8. c5 and black would have to move his bishop again. Plus, black's knights are on the same square color. Black might slightly be behind in development after 8.c5. However, Kramnik decided to play 8. f3 first.
Should I modify my approach based on the computer's solution? or should I stick to the master's ideas?
Thanks for your attention.