Studying Vladimir Kramnik

So I've recently started looking over Vladimir Kramnik's games, tooling around with his openings etc. Obviously there are some nuances that I'm missing, but I feel like I'm learning quite a bit from the experience, and I like his positional, crushing style... Followed by an obscure, tactical game-winning combination!

Is there an optimal way to study a player, or do you have recommendations for particular games of his to study?

What i do is go through 10...20...30 games, spending no more than 2-3 minutes on each game.  This allows you to subconsciously absorb things first, and later go back over the games in depth.  Obviously there are other methods like Solitaire chess, just find what works best for you.  

I usually go through games played with an opening I'm interested in. Usually with a decisive result to try to spot where one player or the other went wrong.

Next would be interesting matchups, like Kramnik - Kasparov and Kramnik - Fritz etc.

There was a book out called Kramnik's Life and Games with apparently some annotated games by the GM. I borrowed it from the library awhile back and can only remember that in one of the games Kramnik remarked how Karpov liked to drop his pieces back to the back rank. Often to his detriment.

Okay, that's pretty much what I've been doing, but I wanted to know if there was someother way that I was missing.

Yes, I prefer games with decisive results.  For that reason!

I haven't systematically gone over a matchup on his yet, like Kramnik - Karpov, Kramnik - Topalov, and Kramnik - Kasparov.

What I've noticed about his games with Topalov, is that Topalov made alarming moves to give himself dynamic play at some slight cost.

Good one!

Without offense, my advise to you is to abandon the idea of studying any player yet and specifically Kramnik because you are not ready to understand how they think unless the games are annotated from a GM. Try instead to develop your chess following general plans of studying and when you will be ready to understand their games you will not make a thread like this.

Now its like studying Einstein when you don't know how to compose a physics equation. You will see only what you understand when that's not enough.

It took Kramnik three decades playing chess to reach there, its at least arrogant to think we can study him.  If you look Kramnik's games before 2000 you will see a quite different approach to his technical style in comparison after he became World Champion. He first changed the way we all understand chess and then he adopted a new style. 

Good points.  For starting up players, you will learn better if the games are annotated. Having told this, Krammnik's games are more beginner friendly compare to someone like Karpov. Capablanca's game are also instructive for beginners.

Here's a game of him against Nakamura in the King's Indian.

The nice thing about this variation is that if black doesn't play 9. ... Ng4 white will play 10. Nd2! and you will reach the perfect piece placement white could possibly have against the king's indian.

(Nc3, Nd2, Be3 and Be2) usually white isn't able to reach this ideal setup.

Even if Ng4 is played which is the most critical variation against this line the position remains difficult.

Also you can be sure that your opponent won't be prepared against this line.

Studying Kramnik's style is nice I think there was a series of articles a woman GM made studying his games and implementing them in her own game. However studying games between two top GM's will be a tough mountain to climb there are opening preps and engine analysis used in these games. I prefer analying games between top GM's against lower rated but still stronger players like in the 2500-2600 range because they are more instructive; they often show how a mistake is easily punished by the top guns.

Possibly of interest:
https://www.newinchess.com/media/wysiwyg/product_pdf/7173.pdf

I'm sure Kramnik thanks Topalov graciously!

I'm mostly looking at decisive games of his. I like his patient method of holding onto advanages throughout the game. Not to say that other GMs can't or don't do the same thing, but his style makes sense to me...

At some point I intend to study Bronstein's "Zurich International Tournament 1953", so I will take your approach when I do that.

Of course, I'm not diving into Kramnik's games, doing nothing else. I continue practicing daily tactics, playing daily games... (I've switched my game playing over to lichess as chess.com tends to lag for me in v3. But I like the community here, so this is where I ask all my questions, and answer forum posts, in case you are wondering about my apparent lack of activity.)

I don't think it is arrogant to study him, but to assume that we know all there is to know about his plan/strategy in a given game is ludicrous... I am more trying to pick up on patterns from his games, and perhaps give myself an insight into what happens inside his head... I'm not trying to become Kramnik, simply trying to learn from him.

I've been interested in the idea of Bg5 in the KID, to provoke h6, when black will have to expose his king uncomfortably if he wants to carry on with his typical ...f5 play.

Indeed, a clash of titans, while awe-inspiring, can be hard to follow... But if I ignore the openings, and look at the middlegame, I can play "guess the motive"...

Cool! This is another book to add to my list... Thank you!

Play over the games quickly, slowly, play solitaire chess, guess the moves after the beginning, etc.  Dont be discouraged over what your wont get right.  Active learning is still a great way to learn.  Be sure to use a real board, pieces, and book.

I have been studying on a screen, but am planning to print up games and other material to study to use with my board...

Passive learning is still learning i still learning, but active learning is much better.  You will see more.