I think Morphy games aren't the best for beginners anymore

No, it's definitely NOT harmful, and is VERY helpful for lower (B-D) level class players. 

I don't think you should ONLY study class player games, and master/GM games certainly are worth studying, but ignoring class player games as a class player means you're ignoring the study of the absolute most common errors YOU and your opponents will repeatedly make, even if they're so obvious to a GM that it's not worth going throughthe refutation. 

I learned a lot of basic game play from Dan Heisman's class player game book. The mistakes made are common, and the refutations are helpful. As are the comments about simple but essential chess play, like trading down in material-ahead positions, keeping positions closed if you have the Ns - simple stuff that is simple, but commonly misplayed at the class level, and you can REALLY see how important those mistakes are between class player levels, rather than masters+ who can often 'fix' those problems later in the game through some skillful maneuvering. 

Note if you study class player games, you obviously can't just study/memorize the game itself - you have to be studying the correct refutations and sideline analyses of the errors to make it valuable. (Same in GM games, but there are fewer errors.)

If I had to start over again learning chess, I would have gotten that class player chess book a lot earlier rather than go right to GM games in the openings I play.

When both players are class level, you don't learn as much since you're learning from two sides of the same filthy coin, except one is filthier. Morohy games illustrate beginner mistakes as well, except one side is playing great chess that you can learn from.

Candid and sometimes humorous thoughts from Peter Svidler that touch on these subjects (link at bottom):

19:30
What do you think are the key topics that divide the advanced levels of chess players, for example what can an IM do better than an FM?

28:57
Which chess books to read?

55:00
Advice for players under 2000? Should I solve many tactical puzzles?

1:03:33
Advice for a player coming back to chess after 1 year (talks about online blitz chess)

1:05:40
Advice for amateur improvement? (touches on whether opening study is important and which openings to begin with)

23:45
An example of being candid and in good humor, he gives a thoughtful response to the question: "Would you rather fight one horse sized duck, or 100 duck sized horses?"

Many other interesting questions from odds games to the length of world champion matches, but the ones above I felt were more on topic to this thread.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jfV9RQrE9Y

They say older players are easier to understand than modern players, which is true to an extent.  A 1000 player isn't going to understand all the computerized theory that Kasparov, Kramnik, Carlsen, etc had.

That said, the Romantic era is TOO OLD.  Even beginners that put any effort into learning can figure out that what was done in the 1800 isn't really viable any more.

I think the ideal player to study if you are going to narrow yourself down to 1 player is probably Capablanca.  His attitude was to keep the position simple.

However, no matter who you study, there is a major difference between unannotated Capablanca games, Computer-Annotated Capablanca Games, Densely Annotated Capablanca Games, and Annotations proper for a beginner of Capablanca Games.

I think a player should study a basic endgame book, a basic tactics book, a basic book on strategy, and then Capablanca Move by Move!

I've transcribed 100s of games from Russian books.  It's the text that hides behind Cyrillic inscrutability.

Zurich 1953 is really heavy stuff. 

I have the book lying in my library, both as a hard copy and on my computer - so far I haven't been able to work through more than the first two chapters. 

Every single game is so rich with ideas, tactics and strategy - and very often I wish that I could ask the author a concrete question - what did he mean by something, and what if something...

I can put it through an engine and get variations, of course - but not the idea and its various transformations in the GM's mind as the position evolves. 

So that's what happened. Every game I went through provided far more questions than it did answers. I could see that I was touching something huge here, but felt that I needed a bit more in way of explanation, to really draw the benefits that are there to be had. 

A bit frustrating, as I can definitely sense the depth. 

Now that I'm writing this post, another idea comes to mind - that it could be a great idea (perhaps) just playing very quickly through all of the games in the book, two or three times, before actually delving very deeply into the annotation.

Maybe familiarity would enhance the value I could draw out of the book, and maybe through that familiarity, many of my questions would be answered and I would become stronger in strategy. 

On the subject of books, and relating to some of Pfren's previous sentiments on talent vs work, I think many amateurs would be surprised on hearing Svidler's story about reading one of his first chess books so many times that it fell apart... he was only "7 or 8" years old at the time.

He also said his parents bought for him "two and a half full libraries of chess books" (perhaps he meant shelves) of which he read "upwards of 90%"

A pretty stark contrast to what we often see in the forums, which in comparison often amounts to asking "what can I NOT study and still improve?"

Magnus Carlsen, in his app ("Play Magnus"), also reports that he devoured his dad's whole chess library when he was 8 - and that that accounted for the enormously rapid progress he then started to make. 

The right person, the right materials, the right time, the right hunger. 

Yes. And accounts of Carlsen's father characterize him as the opposite of a Mr Kamsky or Mr Polgar.

To a child like this, such effort did not require huge motivation. It was very likely enjoyable.

I remember reading something by a Soviet GM... maybe it was Tal... that books in the USSR were hard to find and highly treasured.  I'm guessing most Soviet skill, at least pre-Glasnost, was gained through face-to-face instruction?

Difficult for a 1900 fide Zurich 1953? For a advance player 1900 to 2150 elo Zurich 1953 should not be beyond a player understanding, Bronstein annotation is excellent.  

The lesson is black knight is outplay and white has a extra piece in the kingside to attack the black. The other advantage for white is black cannot trade queens and because the b6-pawn drops.

You talking to me?

Why do you remove 82 of my hard-earned FIDE points then?

I worked very hard to get them !!!!

And yes, it's not that the material in the book is incomprehensible - it's just that it raises more questions. 

When I can't find satisfactory answers to these questions, I don't (yet?) get confident enough to play these setups as are advocated in the book. 

Fantastic game, by the way...

But if I was sitting with a strong player, I would ask some basic questions about the structure (I don't generally play these structures, exactly because of these open questions). 

For example, after 5...Bxb4, does white really have enough for the pawn? 

Or - after 5...c5 (as played) - what did black really obtain with that move after 6. bc and 7. Bb2 (where the d-pawn can no longer count on the support of its Q-side neighbor). 

Such questions are simple - but the answers to them would lead to involved, complex discussion which would combine strategy and tactics. 

Such a discussion, when it will fully answer all of the questions I raise, would certainly do much to improve my "feel" for these closed, double-edged, exciting positions. 

Until that happens, the existence of these unanswered questions (and I have tons of these) would simply leave me at a mystery when looking at these games. I can enjoy them - but can't emulate this kind of play so long as these questions stay open. 

Bronstein annotation was not meant to answer every question but each individual to do their own work on unanswer questions: that is what makes it a great book for advance players. One my friend call this book a middlegame book, the rich concepts in the middlegame is still applicable for players who are 1900 to 2200 elo. I am not attacking you, just making statement how a 1900 and beyond can benefit from Bronstein annotations, no book cannnot answer every question. Kotov's book " Think Like a Grandmaster", talks about candidate moves, he give a belief description but it should be the reader to develop this skill, Kotov could not possibly answer every question concerning candidate moves. 

"... as the years passed, I grew increasingly discontent with some of Bronstein's broad generalities and airy observations. Comments that purported to be pearls of wisdom ended up having too little to do with the game at hand, and the most important moments of the game were too often passed over. ... if the author's ideas end up substituting for the ideas expressed by the moves actually played, he might overlook the truth of what is happening on the board, as well as the excitement of the fight, and in some cases the influence of a player's unique style. As it happens, Bronstein gives excellent summaries of the general characteristics of various positions; but he does only at a few junctures in each game, when the reality is that at many other points, the game is characterized by a completely different set of themes and ideas. Bronstein also sounds so confident of his opinions that his misassessments are easy to overlook. Perhaps more importantly, he consistently fails to point out improvements for both sides. Frequently, therefore, the reader is given an unrealistic and often simplistic view which neglects the richness of positions, and passes over important turning points. ..." - IM John Watson (2013)

http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-106-zurich-1953-by-najdorf

I can relate to this last post - but I'm sure that nevertheless, the book holds great benefit for those patient and diligent enough to go through it. 

Other routes to improvement exist as well, thankfully. You feel what works best for you at some point. 

I while ago I went through Botvinnik's best 100 games, love the annotation and at times I had questions and they had no comments or analysis by Botvinnik: I learn from the past these unanswer questions eventually will be answer, I can look back at some these unanswer question of Morphy's games and now they seem ridiculous easy.

Couldn't agree with you more on that. Sometimes you need to wait... then wisdom knocks at your door. 

You look at that text again, and - "what was so difficult?"

When I reach this point with Zurich 1953, I will be the equal of IM Pfren and IM Silman...

Well.. You have a point... i reccomended those because i like them, and it helped me improve. And Why be rude? Being rude ain't leading nowhere.