does memorizing master's games good???

ponz111 that's why selecting which game to memorize is critical. 

And, I should note, that the goal shouldn't be merely to be able to provide the moves back by rote, but to understand the moves, something about the variations not played, and be able to think about the game in terms of the many plans that make up the flow of the game. 

It is one tool in the toolbox. I don't think anyone who advocates for memorizing games suggests that one should then not study other games, or not read anthologies, or not do tactics problems. It's not an either/or proposition.  

I just think that the memorizing part is not productive when you could be doing something more productive in improving your chess.

Maybe I'm unique in the world, but I rarely only do 1 thing at at time. To me, memorizing a game requires deeply analyzing the game and studying the positions in some detail. 

And one of the things many coaches recommend for improving one's playing strength is precisely practice analyzing positions.

Another thing that memorizing a game requires of me is to learn the ideas of the opening, because in order to remember the moves I need to have an idea of the reason for teh moves. 

Studying endgames, likewise, is a big part of memorizing a game if the game being memorized has an endgame. 

It seems, ponz111, that you think of memorizing a game in terms of sitting down in front of a book and simply committing the moves to memory. If that's all someone is doing, then I agree it's probably not very productive. But that isn't how everyone memorizes a game. Some people use the game as the basis for studying a whole lot of chess. 

If you use a particular game as a basis of studying chess-that is fine as far as it goes but any one game will probably show you about 5% of what you need to know.

That is why I suggest you study a variety of very good games and be sure you know the reasons behind the moves--to figure out the reasons behind the moves you need help of a player rated higher than you [as a general rule--if you are already high rated--say 2200 or more you need less of that type of help]

Kingpatzer, you lost me on your statement about endgames?

Not every game has an 'endgame' phase. But if one does, studying that game until you have memorized it will result in learning a lot about endgame play. 

A point to add to your comment is that because endgames are so much harder to memorise that the other phases, you have to really understand the reasoning behind each move, which is very beneficial.

If you study a game deeply for several hours, chances are you will memorise it. If you play a game that lasts 3 hours, chances are you will remember it.

Memorising games comes from deep study of those important games. The first game I memorised was the Opera Box game. I have since memorised quite a few games, but always because I studied those games closely.

I was playing an OTB tnmt game a few weeks ago in which my opponent surprised me by playing the Cambridge Springs Defense. I had remembered the game Kramnik-Bruzon, 2006 and was able to play Kramnik's pawn sac idea with complete confidence. My opponent, who didn't know the game, made a critical mistake which gave me a huge edge right out of the opening.

I had not sought to memorise that game, but by studying that line in depth, I was able to recall it during my game. I don't advocate memorising games just for the sake of memorising stuff. If you're gonna memorise stuff, memorise poetry; preferably good poetry!

But if you're gonna study a game or an opening in depth and spend hours on it, you should be able to recall that game and its ideas when you need it.

I do not think there are so many who analyze a game and also as a result have the whole game in their memory?

However if you can, that is great!

Never seen this game (just looked it up).

So what was Kramnik's idea?  I don't really like his position.  Surely it wasn't that he'd find a brilliant tactical shot 15 moves later.  If black switched his play up in there, it seems the worst he will be is equal.  I guess I'll go look for other games with the same sac :p

[edit]
Ok I see a game where he beat Shirov with it, and an attack as well.  But it's not clear to me that white's position is better before black goes for g5, and the position afterwards is not clear at all lol.  (I thought shirov played the game more logically... until g5 when I'm not sure what's going on).

I don't know how you could deeply analyze a whole game and not have at least committed the game to short term memory. 
 

King,  you can and I can but many cannot.

Conversely, how many people do you think can memorize a game without understanding what's going on ?

Indeed, that's what entirely too many players do with their openings.  

+1

I've been playing some new-ish players recently.  It's amazing how many opening rules they break while at the same time think they know them.  (i.e. when I mention it casually they dismiss it out of hand as obvious).

Yes they develop, yes they control the center... they also castle... but they stop developing a move or two (or three) before they completely finish as if that's enough.

And/or they move one pawn in the center, and a minor piece to support it... and then totally forget about the center as if that's enough consideration.

Honestly, I think principled (and consistent) opening play can carry you to 1800 at least i.e. opening memorization 100% unnecessary.

(Or course for practical reasons you'd probably want to know a few so you can save time and energy in the opening phase).

Yes, that's common advice actually. 

I can almost guarantee the IM didn't mean memorization.  Just picking up general patterns and ideas.  Even if it's as simple as you notice they never advance all 6 of their pawns to the 4th rank or something... a beginner would get a feel of how proper chess "looks" e.g. bringing out all their pieces or something.

IMO the more you know, the more you get out of the fast play throughs (you'll likely never see every reason the GM level players had).  So you should have some kind of learning on the side.  Chess.com videos, books, something.

1. Mikhail Botvinnik

"I claim that nothing else is so effective in encouraging the growth of chess strength as such independent analysis, both of the games of the great players and your own."

2. Garry Kasparov

"By strictly observing Botvinnik's rule regarding the thorough analysis of one's own games, with the years I have come to realize that this provides the foundation for the continuous development of chess mastery."

Those two world champs are referring to players who already have very good knowledge of the game. [my guess]

I am pretty sure that analyzing your own games and thus taking considerable note of your mistakes will help you be on guard against them in the future.

Now if I can just eliminate making the same mistake twice...

Let me just re-open this discussion.  I've now memorized five games from before the 20th century.  By memorized, I mean I can play them in my head.  Playing through the games mentally is how I "count sheep" at night before falling asleep.  I started with Morphy's Opera House game, and then another short attacking game with the Danish, and a short Greco mate, and then I went for Anderssen's Immortal Game, and my latest conquest was Steinitz's "Battle of Hastings".

I start by playing the moves on a board, with some light analysis.  I play the game a few times, trying to understand each move as I go, and visualizing variations not played.  After doing this a few times, I play it on the board without the scoresheet.  After I can reliably do that, I write the moves down on a scoresheet without the physical board.  At this point or a little later, I can usually play through the game in my head.

1) One of the neatest things about doing this is that, once in awhile, I come to a new realization about a possible variation while imagining the game--an insight I had somehow missed with the board in front of me.

2) So far, I've found that each successive game gets easier to memorize, even if the games are longer and more complex than the previous. 

These two things tell me that my visualization skills are getting better as a result of these exercises (which are also fun and edifying, by the way!).  So I say, YES, memorize master games.  You will improve your visualization, and after all, there are many games out there that are worth memorizing.

I think recognizing tactical patterns (which is also related to memorization), along with playing slow games regularly, are the two most important things most players can do to improve.  But I would probably put memorizing games right behind it at #3.