Studying via game analysis of Master games...does it work?

Will this help my playing strength?

 I love playing through well annotated games collections. I play through the game with my set and I will analyze the variations that come up in my head. This can be tough at times but I find it helps a great deal with my calculation skills. I also find by studying in this manner I tend to get a great deal more out of the game itself such as being able to visualize and calculate tactical and mating threats. I do all of this old school and that is with a book, a chess set, and my brain. It is slow going studying in this fashion but I can see the binding  together all the tactical/endgame study I have done over the last few months. I find it very beneficial to see the best in the game use these concepts to maximum effect.  If you couple in all the analyzing in my head of the different variations you have got yourself what seems to be  a very good chess workout. I wonder why a good deal more aspiring players don’t follow this type of model…….is it very effective? While I seem to think it is very beneficial I must digress as I am an intermediate player so what the heck would I know:D  What do you think?

I just finished up Petrosian-Smyslov, Moscow 1961. It took me 1 hour 45 min. to work through it using the above approach. I really enjoyed this encounter between these two titans. I feel that by going through it slowly and analyzing all the variations by using my head and not moving the pieces I found that I got a good 'feel' for the positions and a good 'take' on the game itself. To add on even further I find the main ideas used in these games resonate with me for long periods of time. It is fun and with the analyzing it can be taxing at times as I try to force myself to see the different lines but it can be nothing but beneficial. One good aspect by studying this way is it keeps one from moving too quickly :D

u can study these games for many years and always find room for your own improvment......

Good question - any other thoughts?

Also what particular master games are good to follow. Looking for straightfoward classic, e4 openings, centre domination types.

The main thing is you're using your head. However, it is also dependent on level. One must understand what that person is looking at in order to be able to improve. Both would still gain through studying, but a player that understands the concepts will receive more from studying their games than someone that doesn't.

It's certainly something Coach Heisman recommends.  Pretty sure he said that starting out he did 2000 annotated games, although he admits he didn't follow every variation.  I tend to "cheat" by looking up the game in a database while I'm reading about it and then use a combination of the 2D computer screen and a physical board.  I just find it quicker and don't get lost in the variations as much.  I suppose everyone has a slightly different approach.  If I ever get serious about opening study it seems to be a pretty universal recommendation by experts to play through dozens of games in whatever opening you're studying to get a feel for typical ideas and piece placement.  I'm not at a level where I need to do that, but I do enjoy working through annotated master games.  Using the computer also makes it much easier for me to keep track of games written in descriptive notation.  

Might I suggest http://www.chess.com/download/view/guessthemove----training-program?  It comes with 500 annotated classic games.  Of course you can add your own favorites.