Playing over GM games

@venda said
I don't agree with that.
It's ok trying to learn openings by looking at games, but what if your opponent doesn't replicate the opening in his move?
What do you do then?
You can't just blindly carry on with the book opening.

Of course it's quite OK to follow GM's lines of play (book moves). After all, the book lines have been studied by GMs for DECADES. You think you're going to improve on that background? of course not, so don't waste your time. At the point where the opponent varies, then ,yes, one needs to study the position.

@contenchess said
I think Magnus said you have to study the old masters before you can understand modern GM play. 🤔

I can see how understanding how chess strategy evolved over the last, say, 150 years would be beneficial, such as by increasing a player's arsenal of opening and middlegame ideas.

But the value gained seems contingent on how much time (both per week and over one's lifetime) a player has available to study chess, how much of the information the player would retain, and the player's ambition at chess. I would expect that most players would improve more by studying a mix of classic and modern play than by focusing on the former first.