Basically this.
I think there is a difference how those lists are presented and particularly which audience they are intended for.
I think the worst possible way is if a list is intended to be read by participants of a debate - and then the author (or one of the participants) magically expects everyone to obey to the list and complains if they don't.
That's pretty much like the bully who as been outwitted and demands the other to "fight like a man". For people not familiar with them, those lists are in the end only another set of arbitrary set of rules thought up by humans. (Yes, this may even apply to the whole principle of logical reasoning). Sticking to those rules may in fact give you anormous insight to learn facts about the world, but this is in no way obvious. In particular, if the one who tells you about those rules appears to be biased against your own views, you have even less incentive to learn about them.
The second-worst way is to memorize the fallacies, recognize them in an argument, call them out and by that expect them to be disputed.
This might be useful if you're an undecided bystander and try to keep a clear head. However, if you're yourself part of the debate, this probably isn't going to convince your opponent or any bystanders: You're calling out the fallacies, but you're not explaining why they invalidate the particular argument.
So in the end all that's left in your actual counter-argument is "the list says that kind of argument is invalid" - which, ironically, is itself a pretty bad appeal to authority.
Fallacy Man has demonstrated that nicely.
I think the good kind of lists go a step further: They show you how to detect the fallacies and how to dispute them. This way you could actually use them like the patterns in the chess example and drive the discussion forward, even if neither your opponent nor your bystanders know about the fallacies.