They can both see which side is going to win, how that side is going to win and that there isn't anything to do about it anymore. Why spend more energy?
So that's the first thing you could do when studying them: figure out why they resigned in a given position.
Have you got an example position?
Anyway, at your level, studying 2000-2100 games or so would work fine as well, and they make a few more visible mistakes and resign a little later.
To be honest, you aren't ready for them yet. Keep working on tactics.
Thank you kwaloffer,
No, I don't have a specific position or game. If you wanted to pick one, take any of the games from the World Cup 2011. I got through 3 or 4 games and they all just end. I realize I'm not a "master", but the players are more or less even in pieces and the King is in no danger. Yet, someone resigns.
It's as if the "masters" don't care about the game. I can't understand just giving up and quitting without a fight. Your opponent could make a mistake and you could actually win the game.
Which ones of these four games confuse you as to why one player resigned?
Trust me, yes they do care about the game (otherwise it's completely impossible to become GM) and no their opponents wouldn't really make a mistake anymore, they resign when the situation is completely hopeless at GM level.
khpa21, the last one is actually checkmate :-)
khpa21, the last one is actually checkmate :-)
That's why I replaced it.
Another way to say it: a player sees that his opponent can force a win, believes that the winning sequence is obvious (at their skill level), and resigns either as a courtesy or to save time and energy for other games.
Playing GM level chess is an intense mental strain. Being able to save a few hours of concentration at the expense of a game they have a 0.00001% chance of hoping for a blunder swindle is well worth the trade.
Another way to say it: a player sees that his opponent can force a win, believes that the winning sequence is obvious (at their skill level), and resigns either as a courtesy or to save time and energy for other games.
That makes sense. I guess at their level, they already know what the other player is going to do. That sort of takes the fun out of it though.
I'll stick to tactics training for now and leave the masters games for another time.
Thank you all for the comments.
Just for comparison, there was a time not that long ago where I felt like I got absolutely nothing out of master games. They just looked like pieces whirring around to me.
A few months, a ton of tactics training and a few books later, and I went back and suddenly they made all kinds of sense and I was learning some great stuff just from playing over games.
Keeping going back once in awhile, and I bet you'll suddenly find that you get more out of them one day. The light will just turn on.
Maybe studying games from the classical era first would be more satisfying (and instructive). They tended to get closer to checkmate, if not checkmate itself.
At this level they "read" their thoughts each other 
If you watch video annotations of GM games, of which there are lots on YouTube (check out Kingscrusher, Killegar, Majnu2006, ChessNetwork, jrobichess, RampantChess for example), you will get less in the way of detailed analysis, but still get the essential ones, the ideas and plans, the odd "pause the video and see if you can find White's best move", and - importantly from EddiesGambit's pov - an explanation of why one side resigned or a draw was agreed. I find these video commentaries offer a nice balance to book study.
I've been trying to study games played by GM, IM, etc. The problem is, they never finish the game. One or the other always resigns.
Why even study mate-in-x puzzles if the masters never even make it that far. It seems like the goal in chess is not to win by checkmate, but to force your opponent to resign.
My question is, why don't they finish the game? What am I missing?