Should we invest in studying Rabbi Chaim?

R. Chaim is a difficult book, and often you have to invest a lot of time to understand in depth what he really meant. As a result, I had a dilemma. On the one hand, it is possible that because R. Chaim was the first to create the Briske method, he expresses himself more vaguely, but his successors who included his method and express themselves more clearly, and that is why they are more understandable. In other words, it turns out that in order to understand R. Chaim's method, it is more effective to simply study his successors and there is no need to worry too much about his innovations. On the other hand, it is possible that the meaning is exactly the opposite – R. Chaim's book is difficult to understand because it is deep and the divisions in it are much more subtle, and precisely if you want to reach the highest level of scholarship, you need to study his innovations. (Beyond that, of course, there is the reason that there may be issues in which he proposed important ways of understanding the issue that cannot be recognized without seeing his innovations in person.)
Which side does the rabbi think is right in the debate? Does the rabbi think it is worth investing a lot in studying the novellas of Rabbi Chaim?