Should a Class D player study grandmaster games?

I am a Class D player (1200-1399), and I was thinking of reading over some grandmaster games to learn about strategic planning and tactical schemes.  In particular, I am interested in the games of Capablanca, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Kramnik, and Anand.

What is your advice on this?  Which of those players' games would be most instructive at my level?

Start with the old masters.

Definitely, if they are well annotated and you accept you maybe won't understand everything on the first pass.

Actually most books even for beginners and amatuers use collections from grandmasters. It's not important to learn how to play like them but to get a frame of reference so you see a bigger picture. I don't think a player is too young in development to at least examine games from the old masters. I agree start with the older games. Personally I grew up on karpov vs kasparov but older classics are really good for beginners because they are complexed in thought. Also, since they are older the analysis is a little more easier to digest.

 If you like to play positional chess, then I would recommend you to watch on Karpov, Capablanca, Kramnik's game.

And if you want to play tactical chess, then you can read on dynamic players such as Kasparov, Fischer.

I start with Fischer. If you do not know his attacks you may be a victim ot it as many players have learned it. And if your opponent has not studied them they can become your victim. With so many examples of his attacks it is easy to learn how to attack the king. As others have used his attacking methods.

Then work your way on the time line to the future players. It makes sense and as they improve in consistant attacks with good results as you get closer to the future.

Don't worry about positional vs. tactical chess at this level (I think Gserper wrote about this a while back).  Just focus on learning to play good chess.  Once you can consistently manage to avoid hanging pieces and have a basic visual vocabulary of tactics and mating patterns down cold, then you'll get the most out of studying master games.

(this coming from a guy that's Class D on a good day!)

Sure, why not? I think that Paul Morphy is an excellent start because his games are instructive, fun and awesome.

I recommend an excellent game collections of grandmasters' games.

1000 The Best of the Best by Chess Informant

I have used a recent Aronian-Carlson game for calculation exercises and this game (along with many others before it) were helpful.  I was going to post this message as its own topic but think it'll be useful here to illustrate.  To do these exercises properly you must:

1. Have the notation pane off in your Chessbase/engine program

2. Type thoughts into a Word document, like De Groot exercises except writing instead of recording on voice.

3. Positional assessment, evaluation, and calculation are key here. 

I updated my Big Database and the Tata Steel games just came in!

Here is a game I looked at doing exercises in King's Indian positions.  I usually do these from the black side, but here I'm doing it from the white side as I'll play 1.d4 when I get into club play.  I'm posting both the game and positions I selected complete with analysis. 

The first one was admittedly the hardest one for me due to having so many options available, and I didn't even find Qc2, both played and considered objectively best by the computer when I checked it after finishing these exercises.

White:
1. Advanced pawn on d5
2. Should keep pieces on as black’s cramped.
3. Holes on c5 and e5 need to be watched
4. A possible plan should include trading lightsquared bishops as that would leave black’s queenside weak
5. White’s position could unravel, so keep solid and try opening lines when it benefits you
6. Central wedge formation, so operations on a wing due to the center being locked.

Black:
1. Is cramped
2. Used a move to move the king in the corner, so wasted a tempo
3. b5 is currently off the table for white due to the Na6 and a5 pawn
4. May trade on d5 to open a line for the Re8
5. If the knight moves will dominate the long dark diagonal.

I’d say due to black’s cramp white has a slight advantage.  It is white to move here:

1.f4 grabs more space and if 1…e5 could open the f-file for white

 1.Bd5,e5 only helps black and closes the center with tempo

1.Nb3,a4 2.Nd5,e5 3.Nc6 looks promising, except that the knight can be
easily captured, and the pawn recapture plugs the weakness. 

1.Bd3-Bc2-Ba4 is easily stopped, besides on e2 the bishop could capture a knight on h5

1.g4 weakens the white position, but also restricts black

I like 1.f4 here

There is pressure against the b and e pawns respectively.  Black’s king is cornered, bishop obstructed, and knight on the back rank.  The queenside also has a typically weak V-formation, though the kingside pawns look powerful. 

1.exf5,Bxf5 2.Bd3 looks good for white as he threatens to get rid of the defender of black’s weak light squares.

1.exf5, gxf5 2.Bd3,e5 looks no good

1.exf5,axb5 2.axb5,gxf5 3.Nf3 with kingside weaknesses to work with.

1.bxa5,bxa5 2.exf4 looks excellent due to the weak a5 pawn and open b-file, and I have the time to save the bishop from being caved in.  Wait. 1.bxa5,f4 is terrible, scrap 1.bxa5

I like 1.exf5 due to white’s attacking potential and weaknesses to work with.

Black has just played …Bh6?!  Allowing white to trade off his dark squared defender.  This move looks reasonable as it helps black punch out of a cramp by reducing the pieces on the board and helps redevelop the knight, but these are offset by the lack of a dark square defender other than the queen, and she isn’t an optimal defensive piece due to being easily harassed.

    However, that’s my observation and since Magnus played 1…Bh6 it might not be merely “seemingly” sensible and may be the groundwork for a deep plan, the kind of which that simply isn’t available in any of the books I have, or maybe even any books out there.  However, although the previous sentence may very well be the case the scientific method dictates that we try refuting something first, and if irrefutable proceed in the best possible manner.  Also, the threat of …f4 was a great trump card in black’s favor, now that there’s no Be3 to lock in that idea can’t be leveraged against white. 

As mentioned, the bishop exchange made black’s kingside considerably weaker, especially with a King’s Indian pawn structure.  Due to the credible chances of creating a weak a-pawn, awkwardly placed knights, weaknesses on the kingside and very realistic prospects of opening the g-file white has a clear advantage. 

1.exf5,Nxf5 2.Bd3 helps activate the black knight

1.exf5,Nxf5 2.g4 creates weaknesses, but with an attack.  White must stay active here

1.exf5,Nxf5 2.g4,Bxb5 allows the knight to jump to d4, a wonderful square for the knight.  A knight being able to go from a crap square like h6 to a great square such as d4 probably makes this a hated piece. 2.g4 is out

1.exf5,Nxf5 2.Ne4 bringing pieces to the kingside. I can see black having counterplay down the semi-open f-file, but white has enough initiative to deal with it. 

1.exf5,Bxf5 2.Bd3 parrying the threat, still great for white

1.bxa5,Nc5 helping black activate the knight

1.c5,bxc5 2.bxa5 I like given the weaknesses on the queenside, though it isn’t first choice

1.c5,dxc5 2.bxa5,bxa5 3.Nb3 creating weaknesses on the queenside and attacking the weak pawns, though I’m more interested in my chances on the kingside.  My pieces are already on the queenside, though 1.exf5 is still my top choice. 

Computer move: 1.Qc3 is given, still trying to work out the logic behind it.

If Magnus didn’t play …gxf5 I’d think black was dreaming, but since Magnus is black here I'd say that there's a definite solid plan behind this move.  White can effortlessly bring pieces to defend the kingside, and likely thinks that white is too engrossed in queenside operations, but that's reasonable anyway given white's great potential there as well.  The Nb5 is the only piece that will need real effort to make it to the kingside.

  However, maybe queenside operations aren’t too much of a bad thing here:
1.bxa5,bxa5 2.Qc3 and unless 2…Qf6 or 2…Kg8 white may play 3.Ne4 The a5 pawn is also threatened by the queen, who is also quite mobile and flexible here as she can go to g3, etc. 

1.f4 leaves g3 terribly weak, but is there compensation? 1…axb4 2.fxe5,dxe5 3.axb4 looks promising

1.f4,exf4 2.Qc3+,Kg8 and the king is hard to attack otherwise, and white will have to find a way for the rooklift to work, which means finding a way to capture the f4 pawn.

I like 1.bxa5 as my pieces are already on the queenside and  can defend against kingside threats without trouble even after the exchanges on a5.
 

White has traded a Bh5 for a Nf7 earlier, which isn’t the greatest idea given that white has a space advantage and bishops are generally stronger than knights, especially a knight on the first couple of rows.  White though really wanted to win that f4 pawn.

  I suspect that white’s plan involved a rook lift from b3-g3, which wouldn’t have been possible without capturing the f-pawn first.  The Re8 threatens to infiltrate white’s territory, so 1.Kf2 may work 1.Kf2,Bxb5 2.cxb5,Nb8 is horrible for black, and the c-pawn is backward on an open file.

1.Kf2 is my move if I find nothing better, and it also brings white’s king closer to the center for the endgame, especially good if queens are exchanged.

Now, the rook lift I was talking about:

1.Rb3,Qf6 the rook is more active, but black has sufficient force to defend the kingside, and...
 
1.Nd4 preparing to transfer the knight over to the kingside, keep a rook off e2, and threatening the f5 pawn, I like this.  White still has to be careful not to let his space advantage turn into pawns being targets close to black’s territory that are easier to attack than defend.  If there were no pieces on the board then white certainly wouldn’t want the black king to have access to the e5 square, as that’s where he elbows through to the queenside from.

1.b5,Nc5 2.Nxc7 wins a pawn, but is it worth activating the black knight?  White’s position has already turned loose, and white should keep his pieces on the board at all cost! 

The tradeoff of a more active black knight for four isolated pawns is definitely worth it to me, as the knight isn't that much more active.  The black king is already one square away from e5, so a material and structural damage would be a great equalizer. 

White allowed more exchanges earlier.  The king is already in front of the g4 pawn, and it looks great for white at first glance.  However, black can scoop up or at least contain the passed pawn without any problems as the white king is too far, not to mention creating counterplay via ...c6.

A …c6 pawn thrust also threatens to either give black a passed pawn or activate the knight, depending on whether white captures or waits.

 At the end of the game black utilizes a tactic leading to a fork, which in turn leads to a forced draw.

I like how you analyzed that game and that you shared that process with us. I will be trying to emulate that in my own analysis. Thank you.

Yes, @ScorpionPackAttack, thanks for sharing your analytical process with us.  Nicely done!

As a low-rated player myself, and in response to the original thread title, I think the question is whether or not to study games at all.  I think most of us, including much stronger players, would argue that studying games is desirable.  If not, then what?

So assuming that game study is good, especially your own games into which you have already put some analytical effort, then the question becomes is it better to study bad games or good games.  Most agree that playing (and hence studying) games with lesser ranked opponents is not helpful in raising your own bar.  (Yes, you need to know the patzer traps, etc.)

That leaves only games played by competent players.  While you (and I) may not completely understand the reasons for all the moves, nevertheless it does built a mental database of attack ideas, defensive formations and other helpful things.  If the games are annotated by the players themselves, then the effect is (or should be ) accumulative.  As you rise in ratings, you play better competition and you either plateau at your level of capability and understanding, or you continue to refine and improve.

So perhaps the answer is that if you believe you have reached the end of your own capabilities, then you might argue that study of better games is a waste of time.  I don't know of many players who resign themselves to that self-imposed level of competence.

Should a class D player study Grandmaster games? 

No, not if he wants to stay a class D player.

Agreed. I think it's better to go through a collection where an analysis and explanation is given, than just picking up a GM game and trying to understand it yourself. Also, the collections usually have focuses on themes to reinforce the learning with multiple examples, whereas learning with a GM game alone, you'd go through multiple ideas without any reinforcement.

I've gotten a lot out of looking over the games of very strong players -- I think the advice to study "classic" players of earlier generations like Capablanca, Morphy, etc. is good advice, but I think you can benefit from looking over the games of any player you feel a strong interest in for whatever reason. (thinking a GM has a compelling personality is a fine reason to study that player's games for instance, IMO). 

My advice is don't tell yourself you know what you are looking for or what you are going to learn (that is: "strategic planning and tactical schemes" --)

You probably won't learn those things at all, at least not directly. Instead, just look over the games trying as best you can to understand each move. Before each move ask yourself if there's anything "obvious" to do on the board, and what move you would make. Then look at the master's move and see if you understand it. first, do your best to understand the move on your own. If you've got notes explaining moves great, (if not that's fine too, but I know I personally used to become very frustrated looking over some games and being utterly unable to find _any_ reasoning behind certain moves) check the notes after you've exhausted your own ability to discover the reasoning in the moves.

You will be constantly thinking about moves and what makes them good. You will be absorbing "what good chess looks like, and feels like"

You will (eventually, hopefully) develop a feel for many other important aspects of the game. 

This process is imo quite enjoyable. There is a freeware Guess-the-move program which is ideal for looking over games on the computer and  comes preloaded with 500 master games starting with Morphy. I'd provide a link if I had one, but I don't. The program is called guessthemovev3.3. I remember it being a bit of a slog to track it down. 

Good luck. 

I'd suggest tactics, tactics and more tactics!

It that's what turns you on ok.  Most people get tired of a steady diet of tactics.  The main object of chess is to have fun and enjoy it.  There is nothing more enjoyable than playing through a beautifully played grandmaster game.  Study of tactics, tactics, and more tactics is more likely to make you give up chess then become a grandmaster.

What are the annotations like? Suitable for Class D players?

Not really : they use a languageless system of symbols.