Does studying GM games really help?

Well, if your premise is correct, then clearly very few people are studying the game, much less GM games. However, book sales and Internet site records would seem to contradict this.

It's not *just* the 1600 and up players who are studying correctly and regularly. Indeed, the vast majority of chess shopping and Youtube watching is from the lower half...since they comprise the vast majority of people who WANT to get better. 

And it ain't working. 

Just my opinion...but to get the most out of GM games, play blind fols chess with them.  Play out the opening, and then cover the moves, and then do your analysis/calculations and decide what move you would play, and then see what move the GM played. 

It will help you learn, and understand middle game planning, and increase your end game knowledge.

I'll cut to the chase. Studying GM games (as opposed to simply enjoying them) is a total waste of time if you are rated under 2000. 

Class players who actually get better are studying tactics, learning a handful of openings well and sticking with them in their tournaments, and reading a few select strategy books like Silman's Re-Assess Your Chess (3rd edition) or maybe Nimzo's My System.  They are also going through the tedious work of pumping their own games into Fritz or something similar and analyzing what went wrong (and right). 

They are NOT wasting their time annotating or playing peek-a-boo moves with a game collection of Paul Keres or Anatoly Karpov. There is no profit in that...you can't emulate an understanding that is likely never within your grasp. 

Again, most chess players don't have a systematic study habit and that can account for a lot of those players who haven't improved much while putting in hours of study. You also haven't isolated those who do study master games reguarly and their rating movements either. Perhaps those who have a systematic study habit and reguarly study master games are the few who are highly rated (or will be)!

Until a proper study research has been done it's subjective data and opinions on if it's benefitual or not. It seems that most high rated players have spent a good deal of time studying master games in their lives though, for whatever that's worth.

In some ways, you could argue that it was easier for a beginner and intermediate player to improve in the past, because the glut of information on chess in today's environment is very confusing for the average player. There were much fewer books in the past, so there was perhaps a stronger consensus on what the best books were for learning the game. Also there were not any engines, so you had to force yourself to calculate hard in complicated positions.

If you have a good coach to direct you on what to study and you are very motivated, you will not be under 1600 for very long if you are reasonably intelligent.

False.

False.

False.

Many in the 70's, when faced with the Sicilian Dragon, would choose the Yugoslav Attack. Because that's what bBobby Fischer liked.

Players of all levels in the 70's loved the brand new Benko Gambit.

The KID experienced a strong resurgence in popularity among amateurs in the 80's and 90's, because Kasparov played it. Same with the Scotch.

Almost nobody would have chosen the Berlin Defence against the Ruy, until Kramnik showed it could be a powerful weapon.

Well maybe you should become a coach yourself, since you know what works. It contradicts the experiences of hundreds of grandmasters, but hey it might work... Presumably you are already over 2000 yourself, since you make statements regarding this level.

I remember seeing a remark from Greg Shahade that he could usually identify young players who would become very strong by their ability to recognize positions from master games they studied. It typically indicated a strong passion for the game and an enthusiasm to learn its culture. True, you can become strong without this culture, but it's not so clear to me it's a very effective path...

Since we are talking of beginners who try to study the very masters ...  does it make sense for a 4th grade pupil, who learns multiplication up to 100, study the works of world class mathematics professors ? 

> gave you my opinion on the matter and in fact many GMs have stated that this is exactly how they became GMs.<

Well of course...for that 1% of people who are GMs, I'm sure it does help. 

I'm talking about everyone else.  

only playing on defense is a touph posistion. I never try to get my eyes to meet my enemies at the same time. Joules or what-ever physical saying can interupt ones thoughts enouph to be able to make a move. Please be relevant, helpful & nice! How to choose what piece to move first?

1) choose it before hand

2)choose the piece you're going to sacrifice.

3) lose game

>If you have a good coach to direct you on what to study and you are very motivated, you will not be under 1600 for very long if you are reasonably intelligent.<

Must be a rare thing, since almost 2/3 of all chess players are either not motivated or not reasonably intelligent. 

Horrible analogy. I hope you were joking. Chess stays the same no matter what. Mathematics does not.

I don't think most players under 1600 are going to make this serious of an investment with their time and money. For most, it is just recreation and not a career path that requires serious study. Is this shocking to you?

>because you can't possibly know if they are studying master games or not, or if those rated higher does.<

Everyone studies master games. That's all that's available in Chess Life (given a few exceptions for amateur events). Watch the book sales at the tournaments...almost all of them are either openings or game collections. 

Most of the chess teaching culture is based on "study master games. Cover up a move and guess what they did."  You see this all the time. And I say, based on how low the ratings are for almost every active player, that it is NOT WORKING and a WASTE OF YOUR TIME.

I think MaskedBishop makes a good point about it being much more effective for experts and up, and much less effective at lower levels.  I think this has everything to do with tactics versus strategy. 

You don't see "tactics" like you would in a tactics book, in a collection of GM games, unless they are specifically annotated with analysis of tactical roads not taken.  This is because games are not won via tactics unless the opponent makes a mistake. The vast majority of games below 1800 are won or lost via a tactical sequence rather than a deep long-term strategic idea. 

Learning the deeper strategy is something you must do to improve beyond expert level, because you can no longer count on wins due to tactical mistakes by your opponents.  Until you get to Class A (1800-2000) level at least, the best thing you can do for your game is to eliminate your own tactical mistakes. 

Studying master games might improve your play in this regard, through some sort of osmosis, but won't be nearly as beneficial as studying your own games, or even just playing more games with slow time controls. 

HOWEVER, there is a way to study that helps you develop your board vision, which is to memorize games until you can play it out in your head.  Short games are better for this, and I like memorizing the dazzling romantic games of the 18th century masters (Anderssen, Morphy, etc.). 

http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/does-memorizing-masters-games-good?page=4

>I don't think most players under 1600 are going to make this serious of an investment with their time and money. <

Hmm. Depends on how you define a serious investment of time and money. There are some casual players on that list, I'm sure.  But not so casual that they didn't pony up to join the USCF and go to enough tournaments to get a non-provisional rating. 

I was just at the Chicago Open, where about 750 players attended. About 300 of these were in the under 1500 and lower sections. That's 300 mediocre players who shelled out $220 each to play chess.  Most of whom, I'm guessing, have played in many tournaments, and most of whom, I'm also guessing, have been studying master games for a long time...in Chess Life, in books, and on the Internet.

And all of whom are still rated under 1500.

>The vast majority of games below 1800 are won or lost via a tactical sequence rather than a deep long-term strategic idea. <

Yes, thank you. Excellent point. And so it goes with we poor 90% of the chess world...we are going to win because we can create tactics out of our opponent's blunder. Do you see that in GM games? Almost NEVER. You do not play like a GM. You almost certainly never will. So why study their games?

Enjoy them, sure! We all love watching good golf or football or whatever our fave sport is. But let's not kid ourselves that we will become like Tiger Woods by buying his equipment, watching him play, or even hiring his swing coach.  

Yeah, you don't need to study differential geometry and abstract algebra to understand what is happening most of the time in master games. Talented kids enjoy studying master games and eventually become strong players. You don't see them whining about flawed statistics. There is not a study requirement to play in tournaments. If this was the case, most sections would just be disqualified. This argument really does not make any sense at all. I just don't encounter that many under 1600 players that are really serious about the game. Today's average player seems to do a lot of browsing, a lot of blitzing, and a lot of guessing. Correct me if I am wrong. Maybe all these under 1600 players are enrolled in secret chess schools taught by Russian grandmasters and I am just oblivious. :P