How do I pick which games to study?

You don't. You study all of them.

 Study all the games that start 1. e4...e5, moves by the pawns in front of each person's king, known in medieval times as double king pawn openings, then the games that start with double queen pawn openings followed by how to play the black pieces, by then you'll just know what games are for you

Also, that fancy google machine sounds great! Think you could send me a link to download that?

there's a big difference between a master chess player and a beginner chess player.

the beginners know a lot

the Masters understand a lot.

if you can watch a master game and understand why each move was played then you'll be able to understand why your opponents play their moves. if you can't then you're missing something or he's made a mistake.

My sublim doesn't seem to be very good at that.

Point is not just to understand what was played but more important is to understand what was not played and why not. This is difficult to discern for players less than 400 points than the players playing that game.

Ok, let me put it differently: we all know that playing against strong players will improve our game. But, how strong player as opponent is best suited for fastest improvement? Will an 800 player improve faster by regularly playing against 2200 or 1200 or 1000? 

I think an 800 player will improve fastest by playing against 1000-1200 rather than 2200. Why? Because the difference in knowledge and skills is so vast between 800 and 2200 that it becomes difficult for 800 to meaningfully compete against 2200 and therefore he can't learn much. On the other hand, an 800 can meaningfully compete with 1000-1200 because the knowledge and skills are similar but slightly better(which allows the 800 to learn).

The same idea holds true for studying games.😎

Possibly of interest:
Simple Attacking Plans by Fred Wilson (2012)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708090402/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review874.pdf
http://dev.jeremysilman.com/shop/pc/Simple-Attacking-Plans-77p3731.htm
Logical Chess: Move by Move by Irving Chernev (1957)
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104437/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/logichess.pdf

The World's Most Instructive Amateur Game Book by NM Dan Heisman

https://web.archive.org/web/20140708092834/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review872.pdf

A First Book of Morphy by Frisco Del Rosario
https://www.chess.com/blog/Chessmo/review-a-first-book-of-morphy
The Most Instructive Games of Chess Ever Played by Irving Chernev (1965)
https://chessbookreviews.wordpress.com/tag/most-instructive-games-of-chess-ever-played/
Seirawan stuff:
http://www.nystar.com/tamarkin/review1.htm
50 Essential Chess Lessons by Steve Giddins
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708100833/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review534.pdf
Simple Chess by Michael Stean
https://web.archive.org/web/20140708104258/http://www.chesscafe.com/text/review400.pdf

It's easy to be overwhelmed by so much advice. The sifting of advice is not far removed from the tool you need to get better - developing the skill of analysis !

Some of the advice offered you is conflicting - like life, in chess, there is always a sense of you necessarily always being on your own. You should study your own games - especially the ones you lose ! I have also heard it said, and I think there is merit, in studying in the games of the old masters - say from the first half of the 20th century and before to begin with, because their games represent 'earlier chess science' and in doing so perhaps represent earlier and more accessible thought to the progressing player.

Logical Chess by Chernev and the Most Instructive Games come into consideration.

When a grandmaster resigns and we are left scratching our head, I have sometime 'played on' and found the 'winner' ending up in a losing position. There is much to learn :-)

"i will say that its a bad idea to look a lower rated game and study from that" becouse you are in a wrong direction you are still "learning the mistakes", so just "play your game and analyse it by hand then with engine , then study some master game" , then "play then analys by hand and engine then repeat" gm games will improve you quike but others are slow start its a damn true belive it or not

Could do it with a general chess book (many have full games in them), or could do it by opening, or can do it by time period.

But I feel that machine doesn't tell you why it is wrong and that is why people actually go on and get trained by other people because they have the answer to the "WHY". Even I am rated around 1000 and could someone suggest me where I can get some good chess studies with some text to understand the reason behind the move so that I can gain some positional understanding and also better my instinct.

Thanks!

You should study games that were played before the computer era. They will be far easier to follow and understand than modern chess.

Morphy, Tarrasch, Pillsbury, Nimzovich, Breyer, Reti, Rubenstein, Alekhine.

Good question

The reality is, there are only two types of chess players -- good ones and bad ones. Regardless of playing-style, an attacking wizard like Tal isn't any "better" than the defensive tiger Petrosian.

That said, some players are more complex than others and you'll need to understand the basic planning and strategy first before you can really study games. Learning the fundamentals of planning is a mandatory prerequisite if you want to study games, else you're just more or less watching or copying.

Right off the bat, Morphy, Steinitz, and Capablanca are good players to study at the beginner level. They play simple and will be effective all the way to advanced level. As a rule, attacking players like Alekhine, Tal, and Kasparov are harder to study because they rely more on deep thinking and calculation though learning their thought process is also valuable. Then there are players like Karpov and Carlsen whose strategies are very very advanced.

Having a coach will speed up the process, but it's not needed to be competitive as a casual player. I've never been coached, but books like Silman's Amateur's Mind is a really good book on basic planning. I've also installed Chessmaster Grandmaster Edition on my pc, and the Academy feature and lessons are so so helpful. It also has a large database of games there, prominent are the "famous games" which are annotated.

On Youtube, lots of chess content creators will help especially those one who make "climb the rating" videos.

Sorry for the long reply, but to summarize my tip:

Study fundamental planning first, before studying master games. And don't worry, lessons on fundamental planning aren't that time consuming and it's also pretty fun applying what you've learn by playing a game after a lesson.

So many coaches and players say to study the "Classics."   But they seldom say which Classics and in what order.   So I think the OP is asking a very good question.