Does studying GM games really help?

Studying master games can be extremely beneficial, if they are annotated at the right level for the reader. The most useful for beginning and intermediate levels are "instructive annotated game collections" like Chernev's The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played: 62 Masterpieces of Chess Strategy or Reinfeld's The Immortal Games of Capablanca.

Newer works of the same kind include many Everyman publications (which are also available in chessbase and PGN forms) like Chess Secrets: The Giants of Strategy: Learn from Kramnik, Karpov, Petrosian, Capablanca and Nimzowitsch, by Neil McDonald (everything he does is highly recommended), and the great Understanding Chess Move by Move, by John Nunn.

Yeah, well, you see these books recommended all the time. Some of them have been on the shortlists for decades. I'm not convinced they are adding rating points. 

You read something like Understanding Chess Move by Move and it's yeah, great, nice move GM...and thanks for telling me why they did that, Mr. Nunn. 

But it doesn't make YOU a better player. You can watch golf and see Tiger Wood takes his 5 iron out, and have the reasoning behind that carefully explained to you. Doesn't mean if you are at the same place on the same course that your five iron is going to help AT ALL. 

There seems to be an assumption that if you stare at their play enough, and have someone "explain" it to you, eventually osmosis will kick in and your own much more limited set of chess skills will absorb theirs. 

I say...NO. That doesn't happen. Studying GM games will not make you a better chess player. It will make you a better chess enthusiast, fan, or reader. But your OTB skills will not significantly improve...because you will never think like they think.

You can learn to play piano, but it doesn't matter how often you listen to Horowitz, or watch his fingers move...you will never play it at his level. 

You want to hear something funny?  You know what it took for my rating to take off, and for my game to really improve? 

Those Igor Smirnov courses...no kidding.  He doesnt supply "magic in a bottle"  Waht he delivers in his courses is nothing earth shattering or new.  Its how he explains things. 

<<because you will never think like they think.>>

On the contrary, GMs are GMs because they think like GMs a greater proportion of the time than non-GMs. 

<<There seems to be an assumption that if you stare at their play enough, and have someone "explain" it to you, eventually osmosis will kick in and your own much more limited set of chess skills will absorb theirs. 

I say...NO. That doesn't happen.>>

It will happen if you're capable of learning. 

Maskedbishop - even though you started this debate, it doesn't seem like you care much about anyone else's opinion on this topic since you seem rather content with just telling everyone that studying GM games don't help. Most people who study GM games aren't studying it properly or just browse through it like they would a brochure so they obviously won't get the benefit from it.

Studying GM games is probably one of the most important things a chess player can do because of the many reasons already presented here. I don't see a lot of point arguing with here on a chess forum so I'll just say this - most people are awful at chess, whether it's because they're old, not talented, not hard-working enough, not given enough opportunities, introduced to the game too late or a variety of reasons. Trying to extrapolate from a series of terrible absolutes (authors only use GM games, chesslife only uses GM games, everyone must study GM games) and using that as the crux of your "statistics" is not something you should strive for when trying to convince the masses of your statement.

I see two beliefs that keep cropping up here, in one form or another.

1) Anyone can become a GM. Unlike a pro basketball player, which most people will admit only a special few can achieve, there is an odd belief in the chess ranks that if you only study hard enough, and well enough, you too can have a 2600 rating, and munch appetizers and flirt with Irina Krush at the next Gata Kamsky beano.  

I say not only is that utterly false, but that it's already been well established that 90% of us will NEVER get over 1800. And if you're angling to be in that 1 of 10, know that 90% of *those* players will never cross 2400...which means sorry, no snogging with Jennifer Shahade. Live with that very hard truth. You are not one of the select. If you were going to be a GM, you'd ALREADY BE ONE. 

2) Ok, I won't become a GM, but studying their games is still "very beneficial."  Very beneficial to what? You going to get better at openings by studying Kasparov? You going to become a tactics master by reading all of Tal's games? Sorry...you are NOT.

If you get better at openings and tactics it won't be by studying how people with infinite more skill than you are doing them. It's like saying you'll become a better painter by looking at a lot of Rembrandts. Talent and skill don't work like that...they cannot be aped or imitated. 

>Most people who study GM games aren't studying it properly <

Oh yeah, I forgot about the third false premise that keeps floating up:

3) People just aren't studying GM games in the right way.  Ah yes, blame the student. The material is there to bring you to greatness...it's your own fault if you don't know how to use it. 

Again, it presumes that within everyone lies a potential Expert and beyond. You JUST GOTTA STUDY RIGHT. And I say...WRONG.  It's like saying anyone can play guitar like Eric Clapton if they only work hard enough and get the right instruction. I'm sorry...we are not all created with equal chess potential (or music, or golf, or any other specific skill). 

I'll give you one example, and then waltz away. Jeremy Silman. Bright guy, great chess teacher, a man who knows how to study chess and GM games better than just about anyone in the country.

He's an IM. Couldn't get to GM...and I'm sure he would have if he could have. If he's not going to get there, with his considerable knowledge of how to study chess...well, you know the rest.  See ya at the class tables, pallies...

TMB

Watching games improves your pattern recognition and teaches you some strategy. That's why watching game films is an important part of all sports. But obviously you'll have to do more than that to improve. Watching patterns and using them in your games are two different things.

However this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that getting to 1800 is impossible... I know plenty of people that have done that. One guy did it with the Bird's opening which is why I find some of the opening topics here a bit ridiculous but that's another story.

>However this is the first time I've ever heard anyone say that getting to 1800 is impossible... I know plenty of people that have done that.<

I didn't say it was impossible. I just said that only 10% of rated players get there.

If you need the link, just ask. 

Maybe but one problem is that the USCF is satuated with people that played a little as kids and quit when they got older. When I stopped my rating was still provisional and when I started again I only played a handful of tournaments. So this can mess up the statistics.

Exactly, he's a joke. Look at his best rating... haaahahahaha. I don't mind someone not having a very good rating and arguing about things, but you have to at least know the absolute basics to be able to have a reasonable discussion about chess. 

Why did you even start this debate maskedbishop? It seems you're trying to convince YOURSELF more than anyone else of this bizarre notion you got. If you tried studying GM games and it was a waste of time for you then that's too bad, but it's how other people learn best. If anything studying GM games is the absolute BEST, purest way of becoming a better player. Because you are learning by imitation and trying to figure out your own meanings behind the moves rather than listening to a trainer.  

The way you come on saying: "I'm seeing two beliefs pop up" as if you're somehow refuting the beliefs. Dude, you're living in a fairytale land of your own making. Many high ranking players including Super GMs, GMs, IMs, world champions, world champion-trainers etc. all swear by studying GM games and I've never seen one criticize it, that would be just insane. You have people in this very topic including an IM all giving their views and you really think you know better? How delusional can you get? 

Jeremy Silman has answered this question numerous times.  He didnt get the GM title because he has stated that he didnt have the time/money/desire to get it.  Its no secret...

maskedbishop: do you even study chess?

As someone who mostly improved (from 782 to 2140 USCF) by reading books by masters, I have much difficulty understanding all this whining. After reading Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev, I saw improvement in my own games rather quickly. It gave me new ideas I could implement in my own games. I did not have to be grandmaster strength to see their value in my own games. You study something and think about it yourself for a while. You get smarter. We don't even have to be talking about chess to comprehend the concept of active learning. It's not magic, you know?

This might be the stupidest comment I have ever read. God bless your parents

The most common point made by chess trainers is that you can't approach chess like mathematics. And I reckon you can't approach golf or underwater basket weaving in the same way either. 

And besides no one is saying that watching games will make you a GM and I don't know where this idea came from.

@The_Con_Artist: Are you insinuating that studying does not improve your rating? I can say otherwise - Study got me from 700 to 1400 in <1 year. I know that's not particularly impressive, but I met my goal.

My opinion is that study can get you to somewhere between FM and IM, but raw talent takes you further.

Nobody sits down at the chess board for the very first time and plays at GM level. Nobody. Morphy is the closest one I can think of, but his IPR in his first recorded game was something like 1900.

The_con_artist, you are really, really, really stupid. I can only hope you're no more than 14. 

You make several true statements, then arrive at the wrong conclusion. It is true that reading Stephen King will not make you a great writer. However, deep study of Stephen King's writings will.

Everyone wants to lightly study GM games and then wave their hands in the air about how they don't improve. Put in some real effort, then you will get real results.

To answer the OP, correct study of GM games, even without annotations, has been shown by research to be the strongest predictor of chess skill. The same research also shows that master level players typically spent 4 hours per day or more studying master games. They studied in a specific way. So of course all of the others who spend 30 minutes a day, and don't know the correct way to study, wonder why they don't improve.