Does studying GM games really help?

Yes but you need to build a solid knowledge base first.  GM games are great to see how that knowledge is implimented in practice while helping to integrate it into a thinking system. 

Reading 100 year old books is ridiculous, except to get a feel for the history of chess theory.

Sometimes I think threads like this may yield some insight into why kids tend to improve faster than adults. Kids just take in information about something that interests them, while a lot of adults have to constantly assess the value of a simple activity that increases one's culture and understanding of the game. Master games are a bit like the katas of karate. The point of the lesson might not be entirely clear at the beginning, but if you keep practicing, more and more will be revealed.

If you need to constantly assess everything in terms of absolutes, chess is probably not the best game for you. You will endlessly be frustrated. Studying beginner games instead of grandmaster games will not be of much help.

Bobby Fischer didn't think so, and he knew more about chess than you.  He studied the old masters back to at least Staunton, and probably La Bourdonnais/McDonnell too.

Whose game is that btw?

I think you should get Lucas Chess, because it does almost everything.

The point is that when the old books were being written, chess was going through a reaction to the era of violent tactics. This means that, in most of the old books, a lack of understanding of tactics is displayed and there is too much overt reliance on positional principles. This is not necessarily good for chess so reading these old books can do more harm than good, unless you take them with a big pinch of salt, DaMaGor.

Staunton was an exception to the rule. But of course, you took my remark out of context, like people do.

Oh and I read "My System", which I rated pretty highly. But I wasn't classing that among the "old books" because that was the begining of the counter-reaction.

I think studying GM games helps me a lot actually.

Anyone that tries to learn a new opening, especially one that next to nobody plays (in my case 1.b4 - amazing opening btw!), will see that it is almost impossible without looking into professional games. 

Yes, often you can be learning by doing, but this means often that you will unknowingly train inaccurate or even wrong moves.

If you look through GM games, the best way of learning is to learn every move by hearth and being able to repeat them in parrot fashion. It is not necessairy to understand every move perfectly, often one must accept that this certain move IS the best. In some books it is not told, why those moves are the best, but in the end it comes down to certain variations that could happen, which are in comparison worse.

1. b4 .... I've had a lot of practice against that because a player from our local club was using it. I favour 1 b4 ... e5 2 Bb2 f6.

The correct way for white to continue involves e4 and f4 but the pratitioners of this opening don't tend to know that.

I remember studying a Kamsky game once. Be mated his opponent with 2 rooks and a knight.

The next day, I was playing a much stronger player. I was ahead on material, with just seconds on my clock. He tried that very same mate against me. I immediatly moved my rook to prevent it, and offered a draw, which my opponent accepted.

If I hadn't seen that game, I no doubt would have lost.

Yes

pick your favorite players in terms of style and study their games

try and stick to Kasparov before kasparov players because thet arent all "i played this move because the computer said i get equality" because unless youre playing for $, opening prep is a waste of time.

I used to play for $, or should Isay, £. I lost my sharpness and started losing in the last rounds due to tiredness. Opening prep was good.

The first chess book I read was Bobby Fischer's biography by Frank Brady.  I played through those games many times over and it helped me tremendously in developing an opening repertoire and tactics.

*cough* Bobby Fischer *cough*

Fischer taught himself chess. How? By going over Master games in books. He read every chess book he could get his hands on. Taught himself Russian so he could read their books. They say he could quickly leaf through chess books and just "see" how the masters moved to arrive at the illustrated position. All from reading chess books and going over and over Master games from day one in his chess study.

Looking at master games just makes me scratch my head in confusion. Of course if I read a book and the author explains the moves I can understand and learn from it but otherwise I am clueless. 

This is probably why chess is not more popular in the media. It's very hard to understand what is going on especially if the commentary is poor. Usually the casters are very stong players and they do not bother to explain simple stuff for the average Joe. 

There is a school of thought that believes just running through the games without complete understanding is of benefit. Your brain sees and remembers move paterns....

An excellent point. I enjoy playing through Mater games, and while I don't pretend to understand all the moves or the thought behind them, it is fun to see the pure beauty of many of these games. I don't always understand a piece of art work, but that doesn't detract from the overall beauty of the piece or my enjoyment of it. :)

Which school would this be ? I certainly never heard of it. 

I have actually seen this recommended a lot in Go. Playing through pro games is often encouraged to get a sense for the flow of the game. Different game, but I imagine there are similar principles involved...