Computer Analysis Strength

Computer Analysis is a great feature. I analyze nearly every game, and it is my primary method of improving my chess skill. Behind supporting the site, it is the reason I pay for chess.com; play then analyze. I think I might benefit more from a “weaker” analysis from the computer.

I do not doubt that the 2500 strength “best move” is indeed the best move for a Master. However, I, and the majority of my opponents, are rated 700-1000 points lower than the 2500 analysis strength. The suggested corrections to my (and opponent’s) play are based on making Master moves, which is unrealistic.

I believe lower rated players would benefit from a weaker computer analysis; perhaps selectable increments so the student can choose. In this way, the best move will be closer to the player’s ability to perceive, and enable a real improvement in skill.

i strongly agree with the usefulness of that analysis, however if the computer makes weaker moves then you don't get the same depth and reason as to why that move you or your opponent made was wrong. Imagine as to the reason why people wish to get coaching from GM's as opposed to someone rated 300-500 points higher. after all the difficulty with GM moves is finding them. with the computer it shows extremely deep analysis often more than 10 moves deep which more often than not clearly reveals the intention of that move as opposed to the on you made. If you do wish for a weaker analysis for some reason, (matter of opinion i suppose) then i suggest getting a chess program which allows you to select the strength of the analysis although i cannot imagine where you will find such a program. This is clearly because we wish to make GM moves as opposed to FM or IM moves. I hope you do not take any offence to my opinion. Maybe i helped you think about the reason that they give GM moves though. hopefully i did otherwise this was quite meaningless. 

Wish you the best.

To me, it is like making a leap from algebra I to trigonometry; without a teacher to explain the [10 depth] move, the value (reason) is lost; there is benefit in gradual accumulation of knowledge. While we all wish to play as well as a GM, you have to get to the level of CM, FM, IM, or even just blunder free first.

Even though a lower strength analysis may not always reveal the best, best move, it may reveal a better move, and one that is within the lower rated player's realm of perception, thus bridging the gap in knowledge and enabling steady improvement. I understand a majority of the compter's best moves, but not all, and sometimes think, "my opponent (or I) would never have made that move", even though it was somehow the best.

I imagine from chess.com's perspective, making a lower strength analysis available could save a lot of processor load, while reducing analysis turnaround time.

 the main problem with your idea is that while the computer may "think" with 2500 level strength it still doesn't "think" like a 2500 level player.  It simply calculates a min-max algorithm some number of moves out.  What that means is that to make it "weaker" you either have to change how far ahead it looks or how it evaluates the position.  If you make it look ahead a shorter distance it won't help much because A. you won't clearly see why the first few moves are made and B.  It may suggest a three move sequence that blunders horribly on the 4th move. 

If instead you change the evaulation the only way to do that is to monkey around with stuff like the value ofthe bishop pair or the value of a pawn.  For that to be of any help to a lower rated player, he would first have to understand those values in the first place, which would make the whole idea pointless, or he'll simply get a flawed analysis, which again won't help, because a 1700 player isn't lower than a 2500 simply because he values a bishop more than a rook..or doesn;t know a passed pawn is valuable; he is just simply weaker in all phases of the game.