joey for someone who is a fairly good chess player-you seem never to be able to admit a mistake.

Computers go brain dead [sometimes] in end games because of just the opposite[ in my experience]--i.e. one side has say a good N vs a bad B and the computer thinks the end game is even.

And I can give examples from my own games where computers could not figure out long term positional plans and thought the game even. One was a Ponziani position which many masters and grandmasters had declared dead drawn [and thus the Ponziani was not a good opening] but I came up with a very long and satisfying continuation to show White had great winning chances.

It is ok to make dogmatic statements but be sure you are right.

By the way I did not come up with the 4 Bishops position to prove computers can make very big mistakes. I came up with that positon to show you that you were wrong when you indicated I could not come up with such a position.

computers simply have issues in certain positions if it requires a lot of maneuvering. Computers can and have figured out endgame positions we thought had an certain evaluation for a long time. Computers need a LOT Of time to sort these positions out and positions are very simple, with only a few pieces on the board. As more pieces appear they start to lose their ability to find moves even if the ideas are obvious to humans. the +8 problem is probably overstating it but the simple fact is sometimes computers make people smile and remind us of their limitations with crazy assessments in easily drawn or lost positions, while other times computers amaze us with their tactical wizardry. 

When I was messing around with computers one of the things I found was to stop looking at the static evaluation but look at the trend of the evaluation. if a position is 8+ and stays that way for 10 moves maybe theres a draw. What i learned to look for was a trend over say 6-10 moves if a position is trending one way or another then thats something to follow. 
Computers also help in assessing the practical aspects of a position if you are looking at a line and see that there are multiple paths that look reasonable but theres only one that maintains the balance and any slip results in a lost or suffering type position then you can ask yourself if you can reasonably be expected to play this position.

Computers are tools that simple but so far they have not solved chess only shown us our limitations as humans. 

Reubin Fine is still alive?

Your statement: "Computers do get brain dead in endings but it is usually about being unable to find wins not because they think one side has an overwhelming advantage when they don't" is quite convulated. A kind of

  triple negative!  Hard to really understand what you mean or what you are getting at.

I really do appreciate all these comments. But as you can see, this is an active forum, and ppl are posting huge comments paragraphs long. Now i'm in school still and dont have much spare time. Please, continue posting, but with little time its hard for me to read long posts that are huge. If you can in anyway, try seeing if you can condense your post in anyway to make it easier. And lets stay on topic.

Once again, i would like to thank all those who have posted

Oh, thank you so much Mr joey!  I think you should write a book!

Just make up stuff and put it in a book--that would be interesting!

It's the exact same exact thing with 1.e4.

Both are deadly when misplayed.