Questions on finding games to study

One frequently sees the recommendation to study Grandmaster games. Unfortunately, Grandmaster games are quite complex.

1) Are there any available databases of Class A to Master level games? Since I only want to get to this level, these seem more appropriate.

2) Should I study Grandmaster games, even if I don't understand them?

So far, my Google searches have not turned up the level of games I'm looking for.

So, would you say that the idea of studying Expert to Master level games is worse than studying annotated Grandmaster games?

It's important that you understand the ideas and the concepts behind the moves and really think about it. Sometimes it's best to look at the position, (after the opening typically) and try to consider what move you would play and why. Think carefully. These are Grandmaster games after all. If you find you're only getting like 15% right and you don't really understand the concept behind the moves then it might be time to study a different way. 

Oh I just read the final part of your question. If it's annotated it's fine but ensure you understand fully what it's talking about, look for alternatives, etc. 

Study the games of the thread below.

You will learn the famous Brain Fry Attack and how to play with feeling, with heart - play with art!

https://www.chess.com/forum/view/game-analysis/the-most-interesting-game-of-chess-was-played-here-in-chesscom?page=1 

The answer to your question is to study GM games that where won using simpler concepts.  Just because they are GM games, doesn't necessarily mean that they are all complex in nature.  There are certain master games however you must avoid at the lower games, like Nimzovitch, Tal, and maybe Lasker, as I have been told by a NM that those games can be pretty complex.  A good start would be a book that has been posted as a recommendation by several other people in these forums.  The book is called Logical Chess Move by Move, by Irving Chernev.

I have read Chernev's 'Most Instructive Games ...' book, and liked it. (Though the losing players do seem to just be waiting for their opponents to finish them off, instead of fighting back as hard as they can.)

I asked the original question, because Silman says to play over thousands of IM and GM games. Clearly, most of these won't be annotated if the numbers he gives are literal. However, games between, say Kasparov and Karpov, or Carlsen and Anand are mind-boggling.

I'm going off the Silman quote: "These games should be by fairly strong players (IMs or GMs), and you can either zip through reams of them without having any idea what each is teaching you, or you can try and label at least one major pattern from each game."

You might consider studying classical games, when 'the books' were being written by the players of yesterlore. Capablanca, Lasker, Rubinstein, etc...the games seem so logical its not hard to be impressed by them. They are not as complex seeming as todays games are.

There are some very good games collections of classic masters, my favorites being Siegbert Tarrasch's self annotated 300 Chess Games, the famous Hastings 1895 tournament book in which every participant annotated games of the other players, and the legendary Zurich 1953 tournament book with the incredibly enlightening narrative by GM David Bronstein.

What I like about the above books is that the notes are all 'plain language' descriptions of what is happening on the board, instead of really annoying (and lazy, I think) lists of sub sub variations that were tried in blahblah and obscureplace. What is more, the games of the past are what today's masters are made of.

There is a book called:

How to Be a Class A Player

Alex Dunne

Well  the Chernev book is a good start, and you did well to start there.  If you get A Guide to Chess Improvement by Dan Heisman he mentions other books you can purchase like the Chernev book, or you could refer to his site.  The books SonofaBishop67 mentioned might be good books to go over as well.  The idea is to pick books that have games good for your level.  You can probably email Dan Heisman himself after you are done reading all the books SonofaBishop mentioned as well as the books on his site for more later on.  I don't know if he will respond unless you get at least one lesson from him.  Of course getting a lesson with him is not without it's perks.  You will get access to his novice nook coolumns, as well as all the other columns on chesscafe.org.  Also, he might give you some pointers.  The bad side is that he is expensive, and unless you have specific questions about specific games you went over on one of the games in the books that you've read like the Chernev book, you'd be pretty much wasting your money.  Well the money wouldn't completely go to waste, as he might just go through puzzles with you, but I think he does puzzles for students mainly so he can know what they are thinking, so he can better prepare the next lesson for you, which is probably not what you would want, as most people at class A strength are pretty young, and cannot afford 85 dollars a lesson multiple times.

Most good chess coaches teach the same things btw, it's just that some do it better than others, and I think Dan Heisman does a good job at getting the information to stick in the persons head for the most part, as when he gives you a puzzle he makes you speak out your thought process while trying to solve it and it helps you remember things more as well.  Especially when he tells you the point of the puzzle.  Yes, his puzzles have points. 

Going over thousands of master games comes as you get better.  As time passes by you would have played a lot more games, and you will gradually get better with time.  Eventually you will be studying Morphy games, Fischer, Nimzovitch, Tal, Lasker.  Eventually, you will reach the thousands mark

 Also, I don't think Silman was trying to say that you can get better merely by playing through master games or games played by strong players.  Such activities are only meant to be a supplement to what you are doing to get better.  In A Guide to Chess Improvement, Dan Heisman tells you the ratio of games to chess learning one must follow.  I forgot what that ratio is tbh, and am too lazy to look it  up in my ereader that is out of batteries and needs to be recharged

You should be analyzing your games, and play a mixture of slow chess and speed chess.  I would stay away from bullet until you are a lot better, even better than my rating.  Always when doing puzzles try and do them in your head.  I do not think you are at the level to go over whole entire games in your head, however, books like Chernev have pictures of the position every 10 moves, and it just might be doable even for you at your level, but I wouldn't know, Dan Heisman likes to tell people to stay away from going over whole games in your head when you are just starting out, but then again 10 moves is not a whole game.  The hard part for me is remembering where each piece is, not visualizing the current chess move.  I can calculate a 20 move tactical king hunt pattern in my head, as I've done it before, but that takes a lot of time, at least an hour, for me anyway, not quite enough time to do it in a game, which is why I have to refrain from calculating all the way in OTB chess.  Part of getting better is knowing when to stop calculating OTB, Dan Heisman calls this Quiescence recognition.

Rather than just merely going over master games, in order to get better, you need to first get better at the big five.

The big five as these:

Time Management

Basic tactics/king and piece safety

Piece Activity

Chess Thought Process

Chess General Principles

Nobody that got good at chess didn't do it by not getting better at  these five basic things.

Despite the fact that you are just beginning, we are generally at the same level.  I may be 200 points higher than you, but that really isn't all that much at all.  People at our level need to couple our learning of positional chess (what you are learning from going over master games) with tactics training.  The best way to train with tactics, is find good tactics books, and go over all the tactics in those books until you can do them in your sleep.  You should make a game out of it by writing down your PR's (personal record to finishing a tactics set).  Dan Heisman gives good starter tactics books in his site.

If you are very serious about chess, I will ask you to put down Silman's books for now, and just play chess, go over master games like you are doing, do tactics training, and go over a book called My System, by Aron Nimzovitch.  You will get a lot more out of that book than Silman at your level.  Silman is good for learning how to make something out of a position that most people wouldn't have the slightest idea on what to do, however, I think your time would be better spent going over the basics.  If you are like most people you might be tempted to google that book Nimzovitch mentions in the beginning of his book.  Just to let you know it is written in a different language, and will probably never be translated to English.  Unless you are willing to plow through a book of games in a different language slowly by typing in the writing in google translate, I wouldn't recommend it.

...

The Starting Out and Move by Move books have lots of games in connection with this or that opening. Generally strong players and lots of words for explanation.

It sounds reasonable to choose less-complex GM games.

+1

Remember to look at Dan Heisman's list, too. He lists anthologies in ascending order of difficulty, and tells you when to read Morphy and when to go into other single player collections. The Chernev books are listed...

Also possibly helpful:

Simple Attacking Plans by Fred Wilson (2012)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090402/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review874.pdf

Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev (1957)

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf