True, Fischer and Capa's games tend to have an astonishingly simple + laundry-detergent "clean" feeling ... at least when you go over them.
It may help to know your current chess strength. Do you have a federation rating or have you played a large number of non-blitz games on a chess server somewhere? What works for one category (rating group) of players doesn't work for others, so some data would help people point you in the right direction.
My Blitz rating of FICS is about 1150 (near my highest yet). I play few standard games online (rating c. 1400, but with so few games that it is not accurate) and never have had the opportunity to play for a federation rating in any events. I lose a lot of games to blunders, which is frustrating -- but not as frustrating as when I have been slowly outpsitioned and outclassed and I cant even see where exactly I went wrong, other than knowing that I have more and more problems and less and less opportunities or targets to exploit.
Someone recommended I try Silmans Reasess workbook. I knew I was in trouble understanding positional chess when after 10 problems, I solved only 2 correctly and one of those was for all the wrong reasons. That's when I thought I should try to understand the play of some "positional" players, even if only in the simplest way.
Good ... now we have a better idea of where you stand from a playing standpoint.
The best recommendation is to bug a stronger player or find a coach to explain the moves that confuse you.
Failing which, I'd say make a beeline for Euwe's Chess Master vs. Chess Amateur. The annotations in that book are far more simpler and it helps to see a Master exploit mistakes that an amateur makes rather than the more subtle/nuanced mistakes another Master makes.
I'd also say start off on Silman's Amateur's mind before continuing on with Reassess your chess workbook. You're reading very advanced material given where you are at .. this might explain why you feel confused.
One more tip: Avoid studying any games played post-1975 for the moment. When going over Master games, always start with the "early ages" ... those games have ideas that are far simpler to assimilate .. so work your way up as you figure things out better.
Thanks for the tips. Is there a player you would recommend for pre-'75 masters to review when I have time for a quick "chess movie"?
I posted the very same question a while ago. Got a nice answer from an NM.
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-equipment/what-are-the-quotrightquot-kind-of-master-games-to-studygo-over-based-on-ones-rating
I've been trying to improve my positional and defensive play by reviewing games of great positional players like Petrosian, Botvinik and Karpov.
The problem is that oftentimes I see what they do, but have no idea why. Even annotated games seem to take for granted the kinds of quiet, positional moves that perplex me.
I have a much easier time understanding the play of Capa, Alekhine, Fischer and Kasparov. Anyone have any recommendations?