GMs annotating games

Quite often you will get the advice to stydy GMs annotated games (s.a. Fishers My 60 memorable games) to improve your own strength. However, I'm not so sure this is true for everybody. Currently I'm reading a Botvinnik book where he is discussing some of his own games and although he is a good writer and the book is an entertaining read I'm not sure I get something out of it to improve my chess playing, it is way to advanced. I generally don't get all the concept and plans and sometimes a game might end (in a, in my view, even position with lots of peices still on the board) with the comment "Blacks Final mistake further weakens the f4 square, the rest is a technicality!" after which follows some 25+ uncommented moves leading to a white victory.

Personally I get much more out of reading other types of game analyses such as the new Silman column here at chess.com. So, whats your veiw on this? Obviuosly I'm reading a "by GM for GM" type of book which is wrong for me, but are there other types of GM annotated game books which target amateur level players? Any suggestions?

NM Dan Heisman has a list of annotated game anthologies, ordered by target skill level, on his site. Scroll down to the section "Game Collections".

 http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Events_Books/General_Book_Guide.htm

I'll check it out, thanks.

I totally agree with MCBeaker.  Heisman has some very good Novice Nook articles on this very subject.

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman121.pdf

http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman50.pdf

Neil McDonald has a lot of good game collections aimed at the club player.

I'm a big advocate of studying master games. Here's my two cents: 

First. It really helps a lot to have the beginnings of a grasp on basic middlegame strategy and positional play concepts. You want to be able to see the postional problems on the board so you can recognize how the master is solving them.  This is where the study of books like How to Reassess Your Chess, Pachman's modern chess strategy. Stean's Simple Chess, etc come in very handy.

Second. Some very strong players (Silman for one) advocate "clicking thru" games very rapidly to absorb patterns into the "subconscious." Maybe this works for the cream of very very naturally talented players early in their study. My belief is that approach is utter horsegack for the vast majority of people. Silman also advocates Kotov's very intensive method of studying games in which one lists candidates at every move and really "plays along" with the game as intensely as possible -- then you go back and annotate sidelines writing your work down and really chewing up the game as thoroughly as possible. THAT method, which is truly hard mental work will bear fruit I'm sure. But I'm just too lazy and stupid to do it. So, I like the middle way... play thru games (annotated or not) doing guess the move. Try to figure out the master's next move. Plunge into the position until you can find the difficulty in it and then give your best move. Check your answers with A) the game, and B) a chess engine.

Third. Computers are your friend. They are GM level coaches if you use them properly. Work thru games with your favorite engine analyzing. Don't consult the engine analysis until you have given your own brain it's due on a given position. Compare your ideas,  the games as played, the GM's annotations and the engine's lines. The engine will also tirelessy point out your errors (and the GMs!) and answer those questions you can't answer yourself... "but why didn't he play RxQ? or what if I just go here, isn't that just as good? etc.

 Hope these tips help... Because of computers, good GM annotations are gravvy rather than absolutely essential. All you need is a database and good chess engine and some intriguing games to puzzle thru.

Finally, if you decide you aren't ready or don't have the energy for master games on your own just yet -- the best chess.com videos are as good, if not better, than the best books, when it comes to annotating games educationally, IMHO. 

Yes I do enjoy the videos here at chess.com they are always very good. I'll try the "Guess the move" variant next time I read such a book. My next project though is a book with annotated historcal classics which I beleive will be somewhat "easier". I know that David Preuss suggested that the aspiering chess player should memorize a few classics...  Of cource there is also a great article series about classical games (everybody should know) but I actually like reading a paper book.

Thanks for all input!

@JG27Pyth

Having the beginning of a grasp on the middlegame would certainly help. However it still boils down to picking annotated games targetted at the reader's skill level. I'd need a much simpler book than you, ideally one that would give me that beginning grasp. For example, years back I couldn't get hold of Chernev's "Logical Chess Move by Move". I found Nunn's book in a shop and thought it would be "similar". BIG MISTAKE . Chernev is definitely the way to go - for me!

I think that the idea of clicking through games at speed to imprint them on the subconcious holds merit (although I've not tried it ). It sounds similar to part of the method I was taught for speed reading documents. In the context of chess, one might consider it as an extension of the pattern recognition gained by repeated tactics training, whereby over time one recognises that "there should be something here" before one actually sees the tactic. Of course, understanding the position and moves should be the preferred option.

As to "guess the move", if the game is a GM level game played at traditional long time controls I don't understand how a much lower rated player could possibly come close to finding the right move, certainly without long hard thinking. The exception might be during the opening, when following the fundamental principles should usually be safe (traps aside)?

Down at my level I need all the explanation possible (which I don't consider the same as annotation) unless there is a blindingly obvious tactic. But then it wouldn't be a GM game.