I respectfully disagree with the idea that the book's unlikely to benefit its readers. CM vs CA focuses on chess moves we are more likely to play ourselves; it shows how a master (or most any strong player) would "punish" those moves. Another book might show subtle GM maneuvering in positions where we'd try for an attack, this book shows us what happens when the amateur begins a crude attack. Or neglects to fully develop. Or fails to deal with an enemy's well-posted knight. Or winds up with a bad bishop. The idea being to learn from our/their mistakes.
I found it refreshing and inspiring to go through the games (which I did several times via playing and saving on my PC): it's one thing to see a GM make something twenty turns later of a subtle mistake by another GM, it's another to see a strong player inexorably and uncomplicatedly win by applying a simple chess principle like a good bishop, unprotected king, better development. BTW, it's very easy to go play through the book several times (and very worthwhile!)
Chess can be brutal. Actual play over the board is what counts. In my experience, it's not uncommon to find the paradoxical example of very knowledgeable chess players who've studied advanced chess texts and can quote you chapter and verse on topics from the Minority Attack to the Rossolimo Variation in the Sicilian Defense yet who remain relatively low-rated players for years. Myself, I advanced to the lowly Class B rank (about 1700 USCF) in months relying soley on tactics and CM vs CA. (Plus a little Reinfeld tactics book, I should add). I made it to Class A having read and re-read CM vs CA with a ragged Jeremy Silman book on endgames.
My opinion is I would rather face a player who's NOT studied the simpler books like CM vs CA but who's instead trying to employ sophisticated strategies and concepts that he may not - judging from his rating - fully appreciate yet.