i also believe the main reason they are going over game collections is those guys skyrocket through the ratings and basically hurdle all the stumbling blocks that hinder the rest of us
nevertheless, we cant go wrong studying the games of the masters- whatever our level
for instance, i just went over the game vishy had with caruna with my daughter (9 yo; total beginner but does some chess study) and we were looking at the Qd4 move and she initially didnt understand why it was powerful- "black can just capture the queen?" then she saw how blacks rook was overworked and the light bulbs went off
i have been looking to get fischer's 60 most memorable games as i have really enjoyed chernov's logical chess and getting positions from some of fischer's games in my chess homework assignments so the interviews with the players sold me on it
it was entertaining watching the games this weekend and i also think the hosting crew has improved from recent tournaments
i think maurice ashley has gotten much better- not so much in the player's and audiences face with the "engine says this engine says that" but they actually offer what they would play instead- i like it much better
During some of the interviews in round 5 of the Sinquefield Cup some of the GMs were asked about a middlegame book that stuck out to all of them. It seemed interesting to me that almost all the books mentioned were game collections like Zurich 1953 or Fischer's 60 Memorable games. No manuals on how to play the middlegame were mentioned at all except for Yermolinsky's "The Road to Chess Improvement" which was mentioned by Levon Aronian. IM Danny Rensch also recommends this book.
It's surprising that whenever this question is asked I almost never hear books mentioned such as "My System," "Pawn Structure Chess," "Simple Chess" or similar books. Game collections are almost always the books that are mentioned. I thought this was a bit interesting especially considering that it's typically the opposite among amateur chess players.