I was a bit longwinded in my story the first time around, so I'll give you the short-short version. I've been playing chess for over 20 years off and on and for the past 17 years or so pretty regularly. I haven't improved much because of lack of studying master games. I've since studied about 40 or 50 master games. But that is still a pitiful amount compared to the amount of playing I did at that time. I need to start studying at least once a day.
First off, chess is not just about memorizing a checklist to think about after every chess move. I'm not saying the checklist route is a bad idea. I'm also not saying someone around 500 rating can't get better by applying a checklist. I'm actually saying that they can. I myself am going to do some form of it at a later date when I try to get ready to play games with much longer time controls. It's also about tactics, going over master games, doing drills, reading talky chess articles, and going over endgames, and much much more. Chess is a game of games. It's a game that has other games built into it. Some guy, I'm not going to mention here, thinks that a beginner at around a 500 rating, doesn't need to go over master games, they need to go over games slighter higher rated than them. I disagree with this prognosis. Why? First off, a person of any rating will gain nothing from going over games from a 1000 rated player. If anything they might get worse because people at that rating sometimes use gimmick openings, which don't work at the higher ratings. Someone of 500 ratings may learn something from let's say a 1500 rated game, but only if it is accompanied by a commentary given by at least a 2000 rated player. I don't think anyone will find a book with a commentary on 1500 rated games, though some people online post videos on youtube where they play against 1500 rated players and they give commentary on the pitfalls of their play. The thing about annotated master games is that they come annotated.
This guy goes on to say that beginner games are decided by blunders and should focus their attention on eliminating blunders, rather than studying "beautiful master games." However, that couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is, no one, can "will" themselves to stop blundering. All one can do, is train their mind, to think up of the best possible move, every move. Master games are just one way of teaching this. There is no way to teach someone to think up of the A move "every time," which is impossible because we are human. You can't will yourself to stop blundering. Blundering will just happen less and less the more you do the things I mentioned and play games, and analyze your games by yourself first, then with a computer.
I'm not trying to down on this guys parade. I'm just telling you what I think is the truth. You can disagree if you want to, but I got to tell you, I at least know two masters agree with me. I will end it at this. I do not believe the guy who wrote the stuff I am talking about is stupid, I just believe, in my opinion, he has a misguided view on chess, and I hope, he is listening. Last I want is people to be misguided by someone giving bad chess advice. I myself am not qualified to give chess advice, but this advice is at the very basic, and I know Dan Heisman at least will agree with what I say if he was reading this, but he's not...
That's more than just a word. Many, many more in fact . . . 
I was a bit longwinded in my story the first time around, so I'll give you the short-short version. I've been playing chess for over 20 years off and on and for the past 17 years or so pretty regularly. I haven't improved much because of lack of studying master games. I've since studied about 40 or 50 master games. But that is still a pitiful amount compared to the amount of playing I did at that time. I need to start studying at least once a day.
First off, chess is not just about memorizing a checklist to think about after every chess move. I'm not saying the checklist route is a bad idea. I'm also not saying someone around 500 rating can't get better by applying a checklist. I'm actually saying that they can. I myself am going to do some form of it at a later date when I try to get ready to play games with much longer time controls. It's also about tactics, going over master games, doing drills, reading talky chess articles, and going over endgames, and much much more. Chess is a game of games. It's a game that has other games built into it. Some guy, I'm not going to mention here, thinks that a beginner at around a 500 rating, doesn't need to go over master games, they need to go over games slighter higher rated than them. I disagree with this prognosis. Why? First off, a person of any rating will gain nothing from going over games from a 1000 rated player. If anything they might get worse because people at that rating sometimes use gimmick openings, which don't work at the higher ratings. Someone of 500 ratings may learn something from let's say a 1500 rated game, but only if it is accompanied by a commentary given by at least a 2000 rated player. I don't think anyone will find a book with a commentary on 1500 rated games, though some people online post videos on youtube where they play against 1500 rated players and they give commentary on the pitfalls of their play. The thing about annotated master games is that they come annotated.
This guy goes on to say that beginner games are decided by blunders and should focus their attention on eliminating blunders, rather than studying "beautiful master games." However, that couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is, no one, can "will" themselves to stop blundering. All one can do, is train their mind, to think up of the best possible move, every move. Master games are just one way of teaching this. There is no way to teach someone to think up of the A move "every time," which is impossible because we are human. You can't will yourself to stop blundering. Blundering will just happen less and less the more you do the things I mentioned and play games, and analyze your games by yourself first, then with a computer.
I'm not trying to down on this guys parade. I'm just telling you what I think is the truth. You can disagree if you want to, but I got to tell you, I at least know two masters agree with me. I will end it at this. I do not believe the guy who wrote the stuff I am talking about is stupid, I just believe, in my opinion, he has a misguided view on chess, and I hope, he is listening. Last I want is people to be misguided by someone giving bad chess advice. I myself am not qualified to give chess advice, but this advice is at the very basic, and I know Dan Heisman at least will agree with what I say if he was reading this, but he's not...