I played a relaxing game against chessmaster a computer character called Kanna who should be rated 1590
I played not good in the game, I listened to loud music almost dancing in my chair but I could without thinking beat Kanna because Kanna kept hanging pieces.
I can't believe I ever had a hard time beating a character in chessmaster lower than 1500.  but I think it could be harmful to me or any other to use this as training, because I could make a lot of errors and get away with it.
chessmaster even wrote after the game:
Amazing victory against a stronger opponent!
No 1590 would play like this, only if very tired. 

Gifts you two pieces, then allows a discovered attack on the queen to get a queen and pawn for bishop and rook, then gives you the exchange.

I think they messed up the AI on that one.

Chessmaster is a good training program in many ways, as long as you don't think of the AI opponents as real chess players.  I think it randomly plays the third best move or something, because it definitely blunders at times no normal opponent ever would.  Similarly, if you try to checkmate even the worst opponents, they will suddenly play like grandmasters to get out of it.

Is it realistic chess?  No.  Can you use it to train?  Absolutely.  Just pick tougher opponents.

Does it go for chess.com computers as well?

My brothers done many test on this he finally came to a conclusion which was to subtract 371-400 from all personatlaties to get a accurate reading on them.

I've literarly seen players in the 900s play better than that.

chessmaster computer characters hang their pieces like crazy

I think it should be taken into account that the programmers are trying to imulate human qualities and tendencies. I bet if you played that same personality 10 games in a tournament setting you would see that they perhaps even play better than the elo said to be for the character. I have a ChessMaster program too. I have noticed in casual unrated games or games with shorter time controls, players wont do as well as rated games in longer time controls. They play even better still in tourney play usually.

Besides this, give yourself some credit when dealing with the likes of ChessMaster. Sometimes you will also play better than the elo it has assigned you. I beat Josh Waitzken's 1800 character as a 1400. I beat a character named Jade(2235 elo) by first running her low on time and then unleashing an attack that seemed insurmountable but, I left one flaw that could have totally changed the game. Apparently Jade didn't see it and time ran out for her.I chalk these things up to not only my own good play but the computer's program trying to behave as a human might.

I also played GM Bogoljubow to what was most likely going to be a draw by repititon or a win for me due to time running out. I chose the 40 moves in 120 minutes the an additional of 60 minutes added after move 40. I got very bored moving pieces back and forth over and over behind our respective walls of well placed pieces. I got complacent and gave away a game due to my lack of discipline. I had never tried that length of match before. The point is, those characters can be beaten, by someone lower rated than them.

Computers don't know how to imitate genuine human blunders, they may hang pieces, but not make a slight blunder on purpose. Thats one thing we're still better at!

 I would say a gambit that could work, that is misplayed leaving you down a pawn could qualify under these pretenses. 

  I look at the engine intentionally losing a pawn it could keep and still play a shrewd tactical series, as a sort of gambit type of behavior, though the computer is trying to use a formula that creates a particular material/position advantage to emulate an elo's level of play.

You did a great job regardless of Chessmaster 10th Edition play.  I am saying 10th Edition because I do not have much dealings with the newer version.  Anyways, even if it did blunder...  I believe the benefits of Chessmaster 10th Edition is psychological.  It boosts your morales.  It gives you hope that you can achieve better in life.  That is what I really like about the program.  There is a test in there by Bruce Pandolfini.  I believe he is one of the Grandmasters who had input into the game's making.  You should take the test and see what you came up with.  It uses a formula to calculate your Elo.  Mine came out pretty close to my best score.

What system is that edition for? I can't seem to find any for my PS3.

There is something like that in the original Chessmaster for PS2.

There is another thing to consider: if you were running a lot of programs in the background on your computer, that will cause fluctuations in the strength of the program, as will the quality of the computer itself. You can depend on a PC with an i7 processor playing better than a computer with a Pentium III.

I have taken each section of the exam. The trouble I find with it is that it can be memorized and retaken. Time isn't a factor either. No credit is given to partially correct answers. Just as I have said before, memorizing the answers to puzzles may help you in a game situation or two once in a while, but generally it isn't going to change you actual rating necessarily.

I agree.  So hopefully you will forget and take it in ten years and find out that you are a master  by then.  

I like your optimism, except for the time table...