Also how do you think it is best to study master play? Guess the move or play through games with notes? Any other way?
Master Study
Sort:
It mostly comes down to understanding. If you don’t understand what you are viewing, your study session is pretty useless. Some players are more natural than others. Capablanca is generally considered a natural, with each move being easy to grasp, whereas Petrosian is harder, and some moves won’t make sense until 20 moves from now, if ever.
As a general rule, earlier masters are easier to understand than later masters. You can’t really go wrong with any one that you mentioned. A chess classic is a chess classic. It might be useful to go through several games of each master and find one whose style or aesthetic you like and start with that one. Personally, I love Tarrasch’s games, but you do you.
As for how, finding annotated games is huge, especially if from the player in question (Alekhine’s Best Games collection is excellent, for example). I like to go through games asking myself quickly what I would do, or what my first instinct is, and then compare that to the game continuation. If a move surprises me, I slow down and think more; if I am more or less guessing right, I keep going. If I wonder about a different move and there is a variation, I check it; if the move didn’t enter my mind, I ignore the variation until my second pass through. I read every annotation as it comes up.
When I’m done, I’ll go through the game quickly a second or third time, just to make sure I get it. At this time I’ll also go through any variation I skipped over. Finally, I try to sum the game up in words. Something like, “Black wasted time in the opening, so White sacrificed a pawn for a big attack, won the exchange and then converted the endgame.” Doing this really cements home the lesson from the game. Try to learn or distill a lesson from every game you review.
Lastly, I’ve recently started doing the following: create a database and store the games I’ve studied with that little explanatory sentence, as well as any variations I find interesting. Most games, especially classics, can be found with a quick google search, so just copying and pasting the pgn is easy. It also means if I ever want to review a game later I’ll know exactly where to look. It’s an extra step, and it’s not essential, but I’m really enjoying it.
Skip Capablanca!? Or should that be: Skip Capablanca?! Interesting move or Dubious move.... that is the question.
Who am I to say? I'm still at the Paul Morphy stage.
"... there are major advantages to studying older games rather than those of today. The ideas expressed in a Rubinstein or Capablanca game are generally easier to understand. They are usually carried out to their logical end, often in a memorable way, ... In today's chess, the defense is much better. That may sound good. But it means that the defender's counterplay will muddy the waters and dilute the instructional value of the game. For this reason the games of Rubinstein, Capablanca, Morphy, Siegbert Tarrasch, Harry Pillsbury and Paul Keres are strongly recommended - as well as those of more recent players who have a somewhat classical style, like Fischer, Karpov, Viswanathan Anand and Michael Adams. ..." - GM Andrew Soltis (2010)
I don't remember ever seeing any indication of a generally accepted detailed order of study. My guess is that it is best to not do too much planning in advance. If one wants to start with Morphy, one can see how that goes before deciding who to look at next.
One can get some idea of the lasting scope of the respect for My System by looking at:
https://www.chess.com/article/view/the-best-chess-books-ever
Still, it might be noted that My System apparently did not occur to GM Yasser Seirawan as something to include in his list of personal favorites, and Aaron Nimzowitsch was not identified by the GM as a very worthy author.
https://www.chess.com/blog/RoaringPawn/an-open-letter-to-the-four-time-us-chess-champion-gm-yasser-seirawan
https://www.chess.com/blog/GMYAZ/open-letter-response-user-radovics-letter-to-me
My System has accumulated some direct negative commentary over the years.
"... I found [the books of Aaron Nimzowitsch to be] very difficult to read or understand. ... [Nimzowitsch: A Reappraisal by Raymond Keene explains his] thinking and influence on the modern game in a far more lucid and accessible way. ... The books that are most highly thought of are not necessarily the most useful. Go with those that you find to be readable; ..." - GM Nigel Davies (2010)
In 2016, IM pfren wrote:
"My System is an iconoclastic book. A lot of things in there is sheer provocation, and it does need an expereienced player to know what exactly must be taken at its face value.
I love 'My System', and I have read it cover to cover one dozen times, but suggesting it to a class player is an entirely different matter."
Also: "[Some things] ARE wrong, and it's not easy for a non-advanced player to discover those wrong claims.
Nigel Short has claimed that 'My System' should be banned. Stratos Grivas says that the book is very bad. I don't share their opinion, but I am pretty sure that there are more useful reads for class players out there."
Although he is a fan of My System, IM John Watson similarly acknowledged (2013) that:
"... Not everything in it has stood the test of time, ..."
http://theweekinchess.com/john-watson-reviews/john-watson-book-review-108-of-eplus-books-part-2-nimzowitsch-classics
One last point to keep in mind is that, even if My System would eventually help a player, it might not necessarily be helpful to a player now.
"... Just because a book contains lots of information that you don’t know, it doesn’t necessarily mean that it will be extremely helpful in making you better at this point in your chess development. ..." - Dan Heisman (2001)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140626180930/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/heisman06.pdf
A My System sample can be seen at:
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/MySystem-excerpt.pdf
A Chess Praxis sample can be seen at:
https://www.qualitychess.co.uk/ebooks/ChessPraxis-excerpt.pdf
Various samples:
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/9027.pdf
I've heard it said that one should study Steinitz's Principles, then Rubinstein's games, then Capablanca, Alekhine, then My System. However, I've also heard that it's good to study Tarrasch, Bronstein, then Keres, in that order. Personally, I'm going to go over Morphy, then 500 Master Games of Chess, then Rubinstein, then Bronstein, and finally Keres. What do you guys think- which masters should be studied and in what order, if one is hoping to improve their play?