The usefulness of GM study

Hi guys, I'm relatively new to this site and to studying chess, though been playing for some time. I'm probably around the 1400 mark.

Question: what is the utility of studying GM games at this skill level? I've done a bit of poking around, and frankly I cant understand what on earth is going on in mnay of these games because it seems so deep that any reall attempt to learn anything seem useless. I was watching a few youtube clips of Anand, Carlsen, Kramnik and others going over their own games and frankly it seems beyond me. I wonder if part of it is their lack of ability to actually explain their ideas well though...?

Play over annotated games where teh comments are designed for instruction. Books like "Logical Chess," "Chess: The Art of Logical Thinking", "Grandmaster Games: move by move" and others are aimed at being accessable by low level players. 

The most important thing to learn from these games is the 'logic' of the piece placement. See where the pieces move to, understand how they work together, adn really come to understand a game from a holistic perspective. Once you get to that point, then going over GM games without annotations becomes possible and you won't be saying the games seem beyond you. You'll still not understand everything, but it won't seem mysterious anymore.

IM Silman had an article a while back about the study of GM games.  Good things about viewing them only line where you just click a mouse and watch the game is that you can: review a lot of games quickly (though how many and what games is another topic), get to the "point" of the game or the why the winner won (I guess you could get to the why it was drawn, but that might not be see-able), and start to catch on to patterns that come up.  Not just tactical patterns but all sorts of things like "positional feel" things.  One can't expect it to make sense right away, but I trust that it will make more sense over time. 

I used to like not move on from a move till I understood it and "saw" it.  To be easy on myself I'll say that is a different kind of study, and not the only one.  Sometimes a move only makes sense in hindsight, or it makes sense after seeing enough examples of it, or the pattern only begins to emerge after seeing it enough times-- and most moves are not things un-to themselves but parts of plans and patterns and bigger ideas.  Those plans are not one-sided either, the patterns and ideas are also part of the interplay between the 2 players. 

There are so many factors influencing any one move in a game, it takes time to start to digest them.  Go over some number of games on some regular basis and the patterns will emerge.  The differences will sort themselves out and similarities will appear.

Anand, Carlsen, Kramnik are just not speaking for lower rated audience... I wouldn't go there... 

IMO Anyone can get something from master games if they're willing to accept the frustration of not understanding a lot (most) of what's going on. If you're 98% mystified, but that 2% remaining is a bright flash of light about piece placement or initiative or something -- you've gained. That said, I think that studying master games gets much more satisfying above a certain threshold -- and it's above 1400, but not all that much. When you have a basic grasp of fundamental positional themes and a good enough grasp of tactics to see tactical possibilities developing in a position -- you start seeing the problems on the board more clearly and you start to see how the GMs make moves that are relevant to those problems.  I think around 1600 -- 1700 USCF (and after study of a book or two on middlegame) you are still mystified a lot, but at least it's not the default setting. 

Oh, and not all games are created equal, either. Some games are just horribly complicated messy and incomprehensible, and others you're like "i must be a GM, I think I understood every move" (it's not true, but anyway it feels good). I find contemporary GMs play a brand of chess that is typically much harder to follow than games from players from the 70s and before.  

Thanks guys; this actually very helpful in terms of the book recommendations and also in terms of morale... It seems that the study of GM games is therefore more about getting a feel for strategy rather than than the study of tactics: I guess there is no substitute for tactical drilling huh...

....no not really.

But it also depends on who the Master is and how he is pitching his games.

I bought the Nigel Short "My Greatest Hits" dvd's and he not only shows some of the more advanced ideas but is also kind enough to stop and show the quite basic tactics involved a lot of the times, at levels most beginners/improvers can a: follow and b: learn from.

I borrowed a friends Anand dvd of the same collection, and it was just click-click-click- this is good click-click-click this is better for white.  Which I'm sure I'd have enjoyed if I was much stronger, but there wasn't much to learn from them for me.

Though, to be fair to Anand he seemed quite ill during the filming and probably wanted to rush through them and get to bed.

IM Andrew Martin is another one who is very good at explaining the game in very broad terms that beginners and stronger players can learn from.

His youtube videos are tops.

http://www.youtube.com/user/YMChessMaster

As some one who's benefitted from every chess book I've read, I agree about good books.  Also agree about how some GM games are going to be better than others, and going in blind it may not be easy to know which will be which.  But the Silman article here a while back opened my eyes to the idea of just kinda quickly going over GM games regularly without annotations or anything, seeing what happens, "label" the game in your mind and move on.  Maybe review it later and see what more you get. 

It doesn't eliminate studying tactics or endings or anything else, but it is something I left out of my own study for a while.