Study best games help beginners to improve? Or stay away from it?

I bought a few best games collection book. My great predecessors. My life and games by Mikhail Tal. My 60 memorable games by Bobby Fischer.

When I was reading through, I can see that the games are playing at a very high level. But I cannot relate the logic behind the moves. I need to think hard to understand the logic.

Should I stay away from the best games until I improve my chess substantially? Or just go through the games for fun?

What are your opinions? I love to hear them.

Your study time would be better served by playing over games from the turn of the century, and Morphy, Anderson, and such.

Good advice.

"... If it’s instruction, you look for an author that addresses players at your level (buying something that’s too advanced won’t help you at all). This means that a classic book that is revered by many people might not be useful for you. ..." - IM Jeremy Silman (2015)
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever
"... [annotated games are] infinitely more useful than bare game scores. However, annotated games vary widely in quality. Some are excellent study material. Others are poor. But the most numerous fall into a third category - good-but-wrong-for-you. ... You want games with annotations that answer the questions that baffle you the most. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)

Here are some reading possibilities that I often mention:
Simple Attacking Plans by Fred Wilson (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090402/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review874.pdf
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Simple-Attacking-Plans-77p3731.htm
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/

A First Book of Morphy by Frisco Del Rosario
https://www.chess.com/blog/Chessmo/review-a-first-book-of-morphy

Winning Chess Brilliancies
http://www.nystar.com/tamarkin/review1.htm
50 Essential Chess Lessons by Steve Giddins
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708100833/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review534.pdf
http://www.gambitbooks.com/pdfs/50_Essential_Chess_Lessons.pdf

Masters of the Chessboard by Richard Reti

http://www.thechessmind.net/blog/2012/4/1/book-notice-richard-retis-masters-of-the-chessboard.html

@princesize -

You have tried to study calculus before learning arithmetic and algebra....

first master the basics, the fundamentals (arithmetic)....

Your first games collection (arithmetic) book should be "A First Book of Morphy" by Frisco Del Rosario...

https://www.amazon.com/First-Book-Morphy-Frisco-Rosario/dp/1412039061/ref=sr_1_1?crid=2U5VJZKI9OFDT&keywords=a+first+book+of+morphy&qid=1574958518&s=books&sprefix=a+first+book+of+mor%2Cstripbooks%2C202&sr=1-1

many good arithmetic, algebra (and some calculus) lessons here...

Good Chess Books for Beginners and Beyond...

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell/good-chess-books-for-beginners-and-beyond

https://www.chess.com/blog/RussBell

Hi guys. These are very good advice. Good recommendations of the books suitable to my level as well.

Much appreciated for the replies. 

The problem with asking book recommendations for beginners here at chess.com is that 99% of the times you will end up having always the same 2 answers, namely:

- kindaspongey quoting famous book reviewers, naturally favouring the reviews of books/authors he believes are good and giving arguments against those he believes are not good.

- russbell and his beginner's blog list of books.

Don't get me wrong...they are of course well intentioned....but their opinions are extremely biased and it seems that it didn't work for them, given their rating range.

Dig deeper and you will find more solid recommendations....namely hicectnuc's (or something similar...it's a french guy), IM pfren and other titled players.

My beliefs (about good and not good) do not determine the reviews that I quote. I do try to give attention to sources that give an indication of the most appropriate audience for a book. In a number of cases, I regularly provide both positive and negative comments about a book.

My rating is as high as I currently want it to be, so it would be a mistake to use it to arrive at any conclusions about how well this or that book works. In any event, one can often consider the opinions of titled players as quoted.

Again, I also provide views of titled players. More important, I try to make it possible for a person to get a good idea of what a book is like in order to make a decision.

"... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable. ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)

You don't have to be a title player, or a high rated player, to be able to know enough about chess to be able to offer useful advice to a sub 1100 player.  For someone at that level, games of the "old masters" are excellent, and much easier to understand.

I'll give some examples that I recall from the biased advice I'm saying:

- kindaspongey always bashes the "soviet chess primer" book for beginners, using IM John Donaldson's quote: "... The title might suggest it is for beginners, but that is not the case. [The Soviet Chess Primer] does start off with some basic positions, but quickly moves on to much more advanced material including chapters on positional play and techniques of calculation." IM pfren, on the other hand says that it's probably the best chess book for beginners ever, and that "Only people who love been spoonfeeded could find the Maizelis book "hard". It isn't hard, at all. It simply requires to be read carefully, and dedicating quite some work on every exercise. I think it is precisely the work part that makes some people think it is "hard", but no work= no progress - simple as that."

- he also always suggest tamburro's openings for amateurs as one of the best opening books for beginners. IM pfren says: "a book with good intentions, and very bad content: titled "openings for amateurs", and giving plenty of engine dumps which go well past move twenty, without any verbal or rational explanation"

the list of examples could go on and on.

I'm just suggesting that you look for different points of view and recommending the forum users that, in my humble opinion, give more solid advice.

I disagree with the fact that anyone can offer useful advice to a sub 1100 player....I believe fide trainers and high rated players are better for this....but that's just my pont of view.

This is going to sound a bit odd, but:

When I was a beginner... back in the Late Bronze Age... I read books by Fred Reinfeld.

Reinfeld was a hack, a comparatively poor player and a poor writer, but those books were adequate to my modest needs at that time.

Did those crappy books permanently stunt my chess development? Well... I'm 2350 now. If I had read Reti and Capablanca instead of Reinfeld, perhaps I'd be 2550?

When your playing strength gets a bit higher and you are looking for a chess book that challenges your grasp of the game, try Pawn Power in Chess by Kmoch and My System by Nimzovich.

As has been quoted so many time here...

"You have to learn to walk before you run"

"You learn the alphabet before you learn to read"

"You start with 1+1 before learning algebra"

And so many others....

And yet, there are so many that think they need to study nothing but modern GM games, Dvoretsksy, and any book that is way beyond someones ability.

Let's see -

You recommend to Ignore the information and advice that Spongey and RussBell offer in these forums because you contend that they are biased.  But do pay attention to your advice because you are not biased.

Spongey and I have both offered advice and recommendations, primarily regarding books, that have been authored and reviewed by recognized chess authorities who are certainly more qualified than you to judge them.  The majority of the books we have recommended have generally been judged by chess authorities (GM's, IM's, etc.) as being helpful for their intended audience. 

And we are to infer, based on your chess rating, that your opinions are to be more highly regarded than universally acknowledged chess authorities (or even mine).

Judging from the overwhelmingly positive feedback we have received from forum participants, I submit that the advice which Spongey and I have provided, primarily to beginners and improving amateurs, has and will continue to be of benefit to those seeking help on these forums than the opinion you have just offered, which is simply to trash our contributions. 

Your essential purpose is obviously to denigrate and minimize others, apparently to inflate your self image,

The problem in your case is that you have registered in 2010 and you've played only 94 games and solved 9 puzzles. Maybe you play chess somewhere else? If not, I suggest instead of reading Kasparov's books try to play more games in first place. Get some chess experience and rating points.

It does sound odd.  When you say "I'm 2350 now," does that refer to your chess.com correspondence rating where you predominately play much lower rated players, or is this a legitimate master rating behind your so-called 'advice?'

According to the stats on his Chess.com profile page, blueemu's rating is for his daily games where the average rating of his opponents is given as 2163 (i.e., higher than your Chess.com rating).

His stats also say he has hardly played any chess in 5 years.

So what?  He has achieved the level that he achieved, based upon his understanding of chess at that level.  This level of understanding of the game can't be denied him, regardless of when he last played.