Does studying GM games really help?

I used to study Gm games with a friend, much higher rated than me. I would often learn things from him durting these sessions, almost completely on accident. Some statement he would throw out offhand, that I was ready to learn.

If he tried to teach he something directly, I often wasn't ready. And it would go over my head. But it was these "accidental" things that I often absorbed.

No! 

He's Martain. Like Bigfoot.

The whole concept that an amateur cannot learn from studying masters seems incredibly patronizing. I became an expert guitarist by learning the basics techniques and then learning to play songs written by people like Clapton, among others. You can absolutely ape talent to assimilate it, infact in many skill-based pursuits this is your finest option. Granted this didn't teach me to WRITE music at a masterful level, but without the tools to do so, I could not have learned to anyway.

Similarly in chess, just because an amateur, using myself for a familiar example, can't formulate a plan like Kasparov, does not mean I'm too thick to understand his strategies if they are explained to me. Once they are explained and understood, it isn't even slightly difficult to assimilate the small patterns of moves and positions you understand most clearly from your studies into your own games.

Studying the games alone is obviously not the best idea, but it certainly helps with an understanding of strategy to pair with my 50-100 tactics a day I'm attempting to commit to doing.

I'd recommend the book "Studying Chess Made Easy" by Soltis - it has a very detailed couple of chapters on how to go over master games.

Since the argument is whether or not watching GM's games is worthwhile or not, could you please tell me how I can break the barrier of "beginner" chess player, or do we all just relegate ourselves to the land of idiots and hope for the best?

>do we all just relegate ourselves to the land of idiots and hope for the best?<

Sadly, the statistics make this likely. Of the 80,000 or so rated players in the USCF, about 9% are at 1800 or higher. That hasn't changed for decades...it's like golf handicaps.

Of that group, only 10% make it to 2200...or 1% of the all around total. So...you can study as hard as you want, but it appears that you have less a 1 in 11 chance of actually becoming an "advanced" player.  All that Smyslov you digested notwithstanding.

@ maskedbishop: statistics like that don't show how how much time each player devotes to improving their chess skill. 2200 level is more of a time commitment than needing to have hidden potential found in only a small percentage of players. Also players with more money are often stronger because they can afford more instruction from books and coaches. 

Well I'll prbably never be an advanced player. I hope to reach an early intermediate level in a year or two. But 1 chance out of 11 is better than my state lottery. You gotta play to win!!

Sadly life doesn't always work out the way we would like. But that doesn't mean the minority of those who don't ever become Worldclass will be losers. And they don't need coaching or trainers.

Everyone who plays chess, ta me, is already on their way to 'success'. Alot of people on this site has had abit of notoriety. Maybe won an tourney, high Blitz rating, or just an forum-hawk.

Whatever it is, you can find success despite naysayers saying, "you can't" beacause of 'statistics'. Just play baby.

of course studying GM games helps.  if you can learn something that u can apply to your own games.  this is why i love playing through annotated games.  or when i was starting chess, studying GM games for tactics, especially famous GM games in game collections (such as you can find on chessgames.com).  don't be a statistic, or a stranger... xD

The best thing you can do is play through your losses with either a better player or a chess program.  

You will improve much better that way than by staring at some game of the century with a mate in 8 combination that you will never be able to see in your own games. 

The big problem is that you spend lot of time analizyng a GM game .. and yes, there's no improve guaranteed. Study tactics and some openings and endings basics seems the most practical path for weak players to improve

 

Bringing us to the natural question:

Could that 1%, or that 9%, have made it where they did, without studying GM games?

Or were those games essential?

It's a good way to play over openings without memorizing a bunch of lines out of ECO.

After seeing certain plans in certain positions over and over again, those sorts of ideas get implanted into your subconscious and make their way into your games.

Good instructive annotations make it worthwhile.

Studying grandmaster and master games definitely helps to improve your game; my personal rating went from 1162 uscf to 2019 uscf in three years.

If studying Grandmaster games didn't help, Bobby Fischer wouldn't have become one. A great deal of his chess ability came from studying GM games over and over and over. Memorizing every move. Of course he took studying WAY past anyone else... But it did work!