This is why you should study Master games

What have you done?

So are you saying that the OP is narcissistic and not humble? Wow. the blatant disregard.  

@ 168
Giving you insight into both what I think when I read your imaginative narratives and the small effort I'm now willing to put into responding.

It wasnt directed at you Yaroslavl

I will thank the austistic kid for showing me the true meaning of life and then make it my life's work to deify him. 

scared? Even the three strooges know you failed brah.

I totally agree, studying past and present masters helps your game a lot.

What games have you studied and what is your criteria in choosing a game to study in the future

Purchase or download  a games database like Chessgames 5 millon+ games database.  Next purchase or download software like Chess Openings Wizard. Select an opening repertore (3 openings as White and 3 openings as Black).  Have the computer create an opening tree based on those 6 openings from the games database.  Practice on Chess Openings Wizard (a tutorial program) for 2-3 years until you have an openings visualization pattern memory bank of those 6 openings. 

I know, right?

You fellas are way too smart for me.

Gauri is FM because he put the hard work in. How do you know what type of positions you will get in your games? Study the classics. Enough said.

Yes, and even if you do it then you'll successfully reach +/= positions every time you play someone under, lets say 2400, while at the same time being overwhelmingly clueless of what to do next, and achieve a lost position within the next 10 moves.

More likely, because you don't understand things, you'll unknowingly memorize lines that lead to very difficult, impractical, or even worse positions, as computers sometimes shell out.

I was more impressed by a Susan Polgar article where white attacks with the same formation with a pawn on d4 instead of f4 (initially). It's a more subtle attack because it involves an x-ray with the bishop on b2 and has a more positional nature in its early phase. Got to play it and win a nice attacking game weeks later. Lasker in this game was clearly toying/disrespecting his opponent, who didn't even resign in a timely fashion. I do not think that playing through games without an explanation of what is going on is an efficient way to improve.

My response was directed at a very specific question by letsgohome t post#177 highlighted in bold red above. 

Had his question been more comprehensive in nature, for example:  What steps do I have to take to determine what games to study in order to acquire a comlete opening visualization pattern memory bank?

I would have responded as part of my response that understanding the why of moves is essential.  Without it, it is just rote memorization and useless. My response would have included recommendations to acquire tournament books like Zurich 1953 that is excellently annotated by David Bronstein.  Books like My System, Pawn Power In Chess, etc.  

Your reaction to my answer to letsgohome probably in conjunction with the possibility that you saw the unr. on my profile provides me with the opportunity to explain in depth.  As opposed to puffing myself up and braggartly displaying my title, which would get me responses of agreement without question most of the time.  And, consequently the  player that comes to  these forums to learn would learn nothing from my posts.

Saying I overreacted to your unrated profile is giving me too much credit.  I just read the post and ran with it, I didn't even check your profile.  I've seen you make useful posts before.  Sorry to give a bad impression.