Studying master games slowly vs quickly

Silman recommends going over games very quickly to subconsciously absorb patterns. Some masters agree, others say it's a waste of time and you should go over them slowly to understand them. Does it really matter, as long as you're going over games somehow?

Very interesting question, I have no answer, nor would I really trust one that hasnt been the result of a double blind study. Ok, well double blind probably not feasible. Advice is all over the map, proof is just as scarce.

Just have fun, if you find the game boring go quickly on it, if you find it interesting with interesting variations then take your time.

Go slowly,go deep...spend hours on just 1 move if is necessary.

Very slow.

Wish I had more time (can't wait for the summer.)

If you don't have a general understanding for the type of position you're looking at then the longer you "analyze" it, the more you're wasting your time.  i.e. beginners shoudln't waste their time spending a long time on master games.

If it's guided analysis with a coach or a friend who is a stronger player then that can be useful.

You're right the advice has been all over the map so far.  I strongly believe in the slow approach though not to the extent of "spend hours on just 1 move if is necessary".

Actually I memorize games a technique I stumbled into by playing through side variations and then setting the board back to the original position before proceding further through the game.  After doing this with the first few selections from Chernev's "Capablanca's Best Chess Endings", I drew a master in USCF OTB for the first time, so I've tried to stay with this technique.

I would say I disagree with Silman's idea of "going over games very quickly to subconsciously absorb patterns".  I think memorization does a much better job of subconsciously drilling in patterns.  In order to memorize games effectively, it is best to have a clear understanding of why the moves are being played.

YMMV

I think that initially playing through a game quickly is a good idea, just to get an overall "feel" for the game:  the opening,  key tactical moments,  the endgame -whatever.  Don't stop to do any thorough analysis yet. If the game doesn't 'click' with you at all, go on to another one.  But otherwise. . .

. . . later, start to go through the game slowly and thoroughly.  I personally am just not good enough to do this without a good annotator to help,  so I don't do this with unannotated games.

By the way, in no way is Silman saying that long analysis over master games is bad.  This quick study is just one method he's aiming at new players.

The answer is both -  This was said by Kasparov in his former Kasparov Online Chess University, which does not exist anymore.  Kramnik said the same thing.  Their reason is this - go over the game quickly to get an idea of the patterns and a feel of what evolves from opening to middlegame and then to end game.

Then go over the game slow, deliberately, and study it.  Write notes, they don't have to be exhaustive, and then compare those notes with the games annotations, if they have done it.

You get the benefits of both.

Sure, it is harder work.  Like GM Dzindi.... that name, aaaargh !  Like he said earlier, lazy players stay mediocre.  Don't shy from the best method because it is more work.  You shy away from that because of more work, and you will pay eventually.

Going quickly over a lot of games helps a lot when learning openings - you get a real feel for the general plan of an opening.

Other than that I have no other comment to make except to repeat the answer above: do both if you have the time.

Both wrk fine, Upto you to implement the learning first. N once u identify which wrks better (i;e - Slow or Fast) carryin on usin that method.