Does studying GM games really help?

>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

>Talented kids enjoy studying master games and eventually become strong players. <

Who? Where are they? If by "strong" you mean over 1800-2200, we are talking about 6000 or so people...most of whom are long entrenched on the list. 

Sounds like you are talking about, literally, a tiny handful of people. 

It would be very interesting to find out how many players cross over into 2200, 2000, and 1800 each year, if we are using those levels as "strong."

My guess...a very small number. Most of the people with those ratings have had them for a long time, protected by floors. 

Studying master games is simply one aspect of study. Of course, you should study your own games. How many people do you know who are seriously studying to become a master? There is a lot of wishing, but when it comes down to it, most aren't doing the work it takes. It's a serious effort. Say you followed the approved maskedbishop under-2000 study plan to the letter. What do you do when you reach 2000?

You keep using small number. Did it ever occur to you that only a "small" number could be studying correctly?

Grandmaster games (for folks under USCF 1900) are best broken down into bite-sized pieces and presented in books.  Johan Hellsten and John Nunn both authored a number of books along these lines.

On balance, entire whole GM games are hardly useful, because you can't play that way, and you're mostly wasting your time trying to follow the thread of their strategy.  It's just too convoluted and difficult for weaker players to do.  And, besides, if you don't use that particular opening system, what good does it really do you?

A move horizon of about 5 to (at most) 20 ply is perhaps the best way to learn chess ideas.  From that perspective, "whole games" mostly waste the time of weaker players.

Yes, these games are beautiful.  But so what.  Instead, be practical, then be beautiful much later -- if you are ever lucky enough to become that good.

Or hire a good chess coach.  They don't come cheap.

yes

In the USA, a rating of 1800 is roughly the 90th percentile for about 60,000 OTB tournament players.

A more relevant fact is that roughly 50 percent of all OTB games in the U.S. are accounted for by that same 10 percent of players above.

They are Very Busy Guys.

You have to be selective with the games you study. So many games these days have moves and ideas that are influenced with very precise preparation that even GMs wouldn't be able to find or confidently play in OTB chess.

After playing in tournaments I use chessbase to pull up annotated master games that used similar openings.  Then I use Fritz to through the game move by move, letting it do analysis on each move.   Depending on the game goes and how interesting it is, I'll study from around 15 to 30 moves into the game.

I'll also let Fritz do analysis on my games, and then go over all the results.

I've been doing this for several years and my OTB chess rating has improved steadily, by something like 150 points per year.  (I know, not great for a young player, but my hair is white and getting pretty thin, and it is hard for us older guys to improve our game a lot)

The software tools set you back a few hundred dollars but once you have them you can use them for years.  I don't bother to upgrade since at my level it doesn't matter if I primarily study older games.

Time wise, the most time consuming part is manually entering my own games.  Now that I've been doing it for a while everything else goes pretty quick.

I find that studying games this way is much more practical and useful than studying BORING books on openings.

BTW, the analysis that Fritz gives on master and grandmaster games is VERY interesting, and it does a lot to put the analysis of my own games into perspective.  And when I wonder why a master didn't play a certain move I can have Fritz look at it and tell me why it is worse than the move actually played.

It's strange that there certain advice is only relevant to people that have surpassed specific (and suspiciously round) arbitrary rating levels.

I'm sure everyone has the exact same knowledge and strengths/weaknesses at each rating level.

Unless the opening is something off the wall and abnormal it really doesn't matter for instructive purposes. Any general d4 opening in particular has a ton of good ideas and applications.  

Even for a complete beginner, looking at the opening of for example the Ruy Lopez between two GMs is just the way to proceed. The explanations can explain about how to bring out the knights etc., now clearly this isn't really "studying GM games" as OP means, but it's still taking a GM game and explaining the moves.   

You know what it is? It's that books tend to gloss over GM games too quickly for the typical player (1500-2000) to have a clue what's going on. There are too many games in one book, and too little explanations of the moves. And the explanations for 1500 player would be WAYYYY different to those for 2000. 

First of all I agree with OP. Studying GM games is useless for lower rated players. The GMs have advanced knowledge in Opening, Middle and Endgame and know how to convert a winning position into a Win. 

Secondly, I am trying a new method to imrpove.

Following are the steps for chess.com:

1. Determine your standard rating on chess.com by playing a number of games. 

2. Devise a plan for Opening Repertoire. This Repertoire would grow as if it is a 'Living Entity'. 

AS White select d4 or e4. and One defense each for 1.e4/d4/c4/Nf3.

Avoid all lines leading to Ruy Lopez or Sicilian. Ask some expert. BTW, I have Pfren in mind. 

Refer standard books and write only first 4 or 5 moves for your choice. Our opponents in Intermediate level doent know openings more than 5 moves. Remember first 5 moves and ask some expert for 'Strategical Themes'. The one I remember is ' Every e4 player secretly wishes to play d4 on second move and every d4 player secretly wishes to play e4 on second move. I will come to this later on.

3. Determine how many taqctical puzzles you want to attempt every day. 10? 15? or 25?

4. Take live lecture from expert regarding 'Kings and Pawn Endings only.

5. Read a simple Strategy book. I have MIchel Stean, Dan Heisman and Silman in mind.

6. Take help from 'Ratings' determined from your Standard play. Now devote a certain portion every day watching Standard (Long) live games of players (on chess.com) , rated 300 more than you. At every move try to think what white would play or black would play.

7. No Bullet or Blitz please.     

8. Play one 'Standard Game' a week. After the game. Critially examine all the moves and write your ideas and post on a forum for further guidance.

9. On the basis of these games start expanding your 'Repertoire'.   

don't know if this has been said, but it never hurts to study any type of chess. yes, play over the game or games for fun, try to guess the moves before you look at the next move, cool to do with a friend so he or she can make the other moves, and or, try to follow why certain moves were made. the theory. it certainly doesn't hurt

<<I'm going to sit tight on my assertion that studying GM games isn't helping anyone improve, because there's zero data presented so far to indicate otherwise.>>

It was always the way experienced players recommended you to try to improve. The trouble was, I could never understand grandmaster games. When I was playing in intermediate tournaments, I couldn't understand moves being played in open tournaments. Eventually though, the idea of "doing nothing but doing it well" started to click.

There is nothing wrong studying annotations from FMs or IMs, their understanding of the game is at the same level of GMs, but either their OTB chess play means they can't get GM norms easily (don't get me wrong, FMs and IMs are still brutally strong players compared to most of us), or their life circumstances meant they chose not to pursue the GM title.

Most probably know Jeremy Silman's books, I also have two of John Watson's books and I have a chess DVD by Andrew Martin, all who are IMs.

Using GM/IM/FM/etc. games are helpful.  Solitaire chess with them is an excellent way to improve your game.

In that case, you can study machine games.

They don't have much to admire except sharp calculation of far moves.

And TCEC Season 6 has just finished, with a lot to analyze yourself.

There are more, like former WCCC.

If you'd ever like to study positional theories, GM games are best. And, there aren't much computers whose games are admired.

I'd conclude by the saying: You can at best be like your teacher.

Actually studying your own games is best idea, but later all's your wish.