Is it worth studying the old players like morphy/steinitz?

Like is it a bad idea to base my style off morphy or steinitz are they just too far out of date? At what point are the players safe to study and adopt a style from? Capablanca's era?

If you are going up against Aronian or Carlsen, then you should probably model your play after some more recent Master. If you are just playing against clutzes like us, Morphy or Steinitz will serve you well.

I've gone over the games of Morphy and have learned some things from them. As for adapting his style, one of the problems is that different openings and variations are played today. Also he had a brilliant eye for sacrifices and combinations that you or i might lack. But u could do worse. 

The great thing about studying older games is that you will truly learn planning by doing so.  Those games featured plans that started right out of the opening and lasted for a long time as opposed to today's high level games which tend towards petite combinations without real long terms plans.

Planning will serve you well in club level games...

If you were only as good as Morphy or Steinitz, do you think you wouldn't be doing very well here? Or most places?

Zah?

Morphy's most famous game lasted 17 moves. Today, most of the book lines are that long.

Yes

i would say study games from the 50s. Before that, and they are out of date. After that, and the opening theory is too dense. Get Zurich 1953 and read it.

Chess strategy will remain the same even after 500 years, if the rules will remain the same. Opening theory changes, that is true, but you should not care about it yet.

The point of studying Morphy's games is to learn basic opening principals and to become familiar with the various tactics that occured in his games. Not to mention the absolute beauty of Morphy's games! Anytime spent studying Morphy is time well spent!

I support this message.

I would add that the old games - maybe not too old, say Lasker/Capa/Alekhine, but don't go too much back in time - have the advantage that the opening theory is not so developed, you will not encounter bizarre moves that need 50-moves long lines to explain the idea behind them.

I am not sure about Morphy, though. From what I remember from his games, they all follow the same pattern : the opponent plays as if tempi were worthless, and Morphy punishes. Certainly good to know, but not as good for an exclusive study than Lasker, or Capa, or Alekhine, or any of the following.

don't forget tarrasch

Well, yes : and Tarrasch, and Nimzowitch (but don't get too much of his hypermodern mania - learn the rules before the exceptions), and Reti, and...

Yes Indeed,Now when a GM wants to implement something,his opponent will immediately stop it,That's why GM games look as though they belong to a different planet.However there is much to learn from old master games and you should definitely do it(atleast 100-500

yes

Yes. The development of your chess is the development of chess in general. The early masters used to use an all out attack, it was all tactics. So you have to know this; to understand which moves are playable and which are not. 

Then came Steinitz, who said, that is not how you play. You have to build up slowly, and he gave a few people a whipping. 

Then Lasker and company caught on, and later masters learnt how to play with Steinitz principles in mind, but were also well aware of the work of the earlier masters.

So if you understand the older games, you'll know why the following generation of players played in a certain way. Each generation builds up on the other, and its worth learning their games.

SO that when you study recent games you'll know what they are playing for and playing against. 

Why not ask the great modern GMs--Carlsen, Anand, Kramnik, et. al.--whether they've studied the old masters such as Morphy, Steinitz, Lasker, and Capablanca? I'll bet they can quote those old guys chapter and verse! So many class-level players think that, to improve markedly, they have to study like the GMs, boning up on the latest opening theory and figuring out what the best reply is on move 15 of the Richter Rauzer attack.

That's ridiculous. The solid foundations of strategy, tactics, and endgame play will endure exactly as they are now for the next 500 years. Nothing will change. If, in the next decade or so, some genius GM comes up with an obscure winning variation in an opening you've never heard of, you can worry about that when you're a GM.

Hmmm... That's probable, but I guess back in 1700-1800 the strongest players thought the same (when they were, by today's standards, patzers).

Insanity. 

Max Euwe argued that the development of chess style in history mirrors the way we learn chess as individuals. As such, the Romantic era in chess represents the first level of chess development. 

You don't need to study the games of the old masters to learn how to play open games. But you should begin your study with open games. There are many more recent examples of these games than those played by the likes of Morphy, Anderssen, Dufresne. There are games from Tal's Fischer's Kasparov's and Carlsen's juvenalia for example that are every bit as slashing and beautiful as many of the early games. 

Hikaru Nakamura used to brag that he had never studied any games that were played before he was born. He has shown that the early games aren't essential for learning. But he's an exception.

Most strong players study the classics as very young players. Every world champion has studied the games of their predecessors.  The main reason is that this gives you a vocabulary of chess that will benefit you as you improve and deepen your understanding. 

So study the classics, but don't get stop there. It's just the first step in gaining an understanding of chess.