Is Studying Non Master Useful?

Is studying non master games in databases useful.?I dont understand master games the variations are too long and dont get why the moves are played.The problem with studying non master games is you might be learning a bad pattern which with best play doesn't work but i figure i can use a chess engine to spot tactics at least.I might be learning poor postional play though?Any thoughts?

I would imagine so.  You can pick out mistakes much easier and have an idea of what your competition will bring to the table.  If Kramnik makes a mistake then you likely aren't going to know which move was the mistake, or if not a mistake per se then where he started losing the thread. 

I'm assuming by study you mean non-annotated games we randomly pick out of a database with the notation pane off typing our thoughts in a Word document playing guess the move. 

Don't use engines when studying since they aren't going to be with you in competition.  Use them after the fact to see where you went wrong in your variations and of course if you missed anything. 

It doesn't make any difference because you're focusing on something that is not at all essential to improvement. You need to develop your board visualization skills by honestly trying to see those variations you say are "too long". And if you "don't get why the moves are played" try to understand. Like really try. You won't always get a good answer, but you'll be surprised how often you will. There is no substitute for effort in chess.

But many say thinking process is the most important thing for improvement.  If he feels they're too long then maybe he needs to work up to it?  Visualization I agree is key if you can't imagine what the end of the forcing line looks like you can't properly evaluate it.  A retained image error will screw up the evaluate the position with more material than it would really have. 

It is extremely important, but I don't see how playing over games would help improve that. To my understanding, thinking process is something that one develops over the course of playing many games (note the difference) and analyzing them.

You look at positions from the game, type your thoughts, and then you could correct the flaws afterward.  If you play out your variations you may find a retained image error in the evaluation for example then work on visualization.  If one fails to see a great move that permanently weakens the opponent's dark or light color complex (such as a variation that forces off an important bishop) then they could work on imbalances and correct it, or learn to give more weight to initiative.  If an evaluation was wrong then why?  Nimzowitsch even advocated guess the move. 

Good point. I concede that it is possible to develop thought process without necessarily playing any chess.

Back to the OP, I still think the OP's "issue" makes for a useless debate. As long as the effort is there, that's all that really matters, not so much the level of the games.