Well I tried analyzing/studying my first GM game today. I skipped to the first out-of-book move, went up to 11 moves (in about 10-20 minutes), then looked at the annotations to see how things were going so far (or if I was completely off track). Well, I noticed a few things:

If you don't know the opening, then you waste alot of your analysis contemplating the ideas in the opening, whereas they have already been analyzed super-in depth by tons of people to get to where they are today. So that messed me up signifcantly, I thought certain moves were bad just because I didn't know the opening and didn't realize that they would work out 10 moves later..

The second thing I noticed is that I kept going back alot. For example, I would dismiss some moves as not being the best, or criticize a move because it did so and so, only to realize 4 moves later that I now see the plan and the move was actually not as bad as I had thought, etc.

Finally, many of the annotations were not the kinds of things that I wrote down (develops this, allows this move putting pressure here, ruins pawn structure, etc. but more very general annotations so I couldn't really compare my analysis to that of the annotator)

With all of this in mind, am I doing something wrong, or should I put off studying master games until I am ____ ELO? Because people have told me that studying games is the best way to improve. I can go back to tactics puzzles.

Some Grandmasters are easier to understand then others, especially the older ones.  I suggest reading up on paul morphys games, arguably the first modern player in chess (as opposed to the romantics).  He has a nice balenced style of play, and a master of open games.  He's a bit easier to understand then modern grandmasters, because the era he was in limited him from doing crazy crap like connecting openings to the endgame.

Alternatively, why not study IM or NM games instead?  NMs and IMs still rely on general principles quite often, where GMs are completely insane guys that have a differant set of principles for each opening. 

  Failing that, study well annotated chess games instead, chernevs classic Logical Chess: Move By Move is a book full of easy to understand games!  Best of all, the games are explained so throughly that your mother could learn how to be a better chess player from the book.

Well I seem to have found a sample game from that book, so I'll check it out. How do you suggest I study games though, just read through it, or read through it quickly, then make notes then read again, just take notes then read. Not quite sure how to go about it, how long to take, etc.

 I agree with MeteoricMike.

As for your opening problem, study games with your kind of opening.

It sounds to me like it's working. By thinking about that opening and then seeing what the actual theory is, you 1) are thinking more than you would if it were an opening you know, 2) remember it better than if you were just replaying the game.

Also dismissing one move as not being the best and going back to it four moves later because you understand something now, that sounds good to me.

About the annotations, could you give an example?

You will find it more rewarding to study GM games ( with good annotations) in which openings are used that you frequently play yourself.

I to agree those are the best solution I see for you.

Ditch Chernev and go with John Nunn.    The games are better, the notes are better, Nunn is a GM (Chernev not), and there are substantially less errors.

Also, NIC Tactics in the Chess Openings, and 500 Master Games of Chess by Tartakower.

Well, thanks for all the help guys, I will definetly check out those books and work my way up into GM games.

As for an example of the annotations, here are the notes that I made on one of the moves vs. the annotator:

ME: 6... c5 - opens up, allows for Nc6 (no longer blocking the pawn, can support e5 if need be). After b6 black has very strong center pawns and can get out his light squared bishop by fianchetto. Maybe castling first is better.

Annotator: Kasparov annotated this game thoroughly for ChessBase. In his remarks, Kasparov says that Black has prematurely determined the pawn structure in this game.       Today we know that Black should avoid doing this, abd hold the pawns back  until the early middle-game. But again this is the accrued knowledge of nearly 75 years of opening theory. Caoablanca was operating w/o this knowledge, and was pretty much on his own.        [Another book line is: 6... O-O; 7. Bd3 dxc4; 8. Bxc4 c5; 9. Ne2 Qc7; 10. Bd3 "="]