Somebody once told me to win a thousand games in chess..you need to lose ten thousand games first? I felt I didn't quite grasp the logic of it at the start but as time went by I learned that experience often is the best tutor in the game.

We certainly gain by learning from our mistakes more so in the opening where the grizzled veteran players enjoy the advantage. Which leads me now to ask the question which I do hope some brave soul can shed light on.

"Is there a thing such as a perfect game?"

One which has been played flawless by both protagonists?

Recently I have been somewhat bothered by the computer chess analysis of my games. Why so? Well for one thing check this situation out..17.Be7..?? You blundered!! Best is the following way to continue..blah blah blah.

Yeah, all that is good but how does the computer know my opponent and I would be playing along that "presumed" perfect line of play anyways? Besides there are other factors when decisions have to be made right there across the board not after the smoke has cleared under unpressured conditions to analyse eh? 

Some of the most well fought games I felt I played just so happened to be the errr blunderous ones! I don't really know how we should treat this although valuable tool in our quest to enhance our play yet at times like God molding us from dirt to become better players of the game help at all.

There's gotta be more to this than meets the eye don't you think?

Also I presume it is the computer and not a human being who selects the best games we ever played. Well for everyone's info the best game I played according to my stats is a 2 move game when my highly rated opponent graciously resigned coz he had to go to the toilet.

Where then is the justice on that? LUCKY YOU!!

Considering how quick the Computer Analysis engine is to label things as blunders, I was quite surprised when I analysed a game in which my opponent overlooked a mate-in-one from roughly equal position and it called it a "mistake".

The first game I had analyzed rated a "book" opening move from grandmaster opening text as "inaccurate".  If opening moves are out of the computers "book" it does not see far enough ahead to see why some tried and true variations are as good as its "book" moves.  Play practice games with a computer and sometimes it will rate a move as say +2 00.  Make the move it recommends and then a couple of moves later it may rate the position as -1 00 or some other widely variant score from what it thought before.  Computers often also play into lost endgames because they don't "know" that certain endings are just lost.

The strength of the computer analysis depends upon what type of membership you have. I really do not use the function here at all since I have my own tools at home.

However the basics concept of computer analysis is too assume best moves (or moves the computer would make) from both sides. In the OP comments about 17...Be7 the computer should be saying this is wrong because of  such and such--if your opponent also does not follow the correct lines it does not detract from the computers anaylsis 

Thanks for the inputs folks it helps my misery a bit.however the basic things in analysis could be just mere mind practice and basically theory?

I would be more adept I feel being on the practical side of things when i play chess. I read here that some really just play what they feel is the "best" and logical move. Besides the possibility you could run into exactly the same game situation is too awesome to consider anyways.

Don't tell me one can have all these variations tucked up in their brain always ready to be used (That would qualify them as a Super GM) because most probably what you may recall is that playing certain move is either good/bad based on previous experience and not entirely on the computer errr emperical analysis.

So what then justifies the computer analysis of games as part of chess training other than as I see it as mere entertainment to see how one goofs off.

Is there a more scientific approach to appreciate this practice? It is noteworthy that during the times of Stenitz and Morphy they didn't have this luxury yet by far are still considered to be Legends of the game.If their games were analized by the computer today would it be perfect just curious?

Now what's your takes on this? TIA

"Is there a thing such as a perfect game?"

Maybe, but I don't think computers alone can generate them or be trusted to evaluate a perfect game.  As they are not perfect themselves, for instance they don't always see the relevance of positional moves that have long term plans. 

Use what you like and discard the rest. There have been many times that I disagreed with the Chess.com's analysis. One time it game me a line of moves and at the end said I had a "slight advantage" and it was mate in one!

The more you use your own mind to analyze games, the more you will improve as a player. You might not find all the perfect moves at first, but you will if you keep at it.

Salamat, Seleucid!  Computer analysis analysed!  Chessdotcom must improved on this thing!  Program must explain why the "inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders," there are games with inaccuracies, mistakes and blunders yet, you won the games!  Hows that for one?  Perhaps, the analysis helps when games are lost!  But!  There's something missing upon reviewed games!  I can't pinpoint it!  Parang may kulang!

Computers can usually spot tactical chances almost instantly, so they are typically very good for that, but even then, and certainly for an evaluation of non-tactical positions, a quick run through an engine isn't going to be a final word. 

It's an aid, not an answer key to a puzzle quiz.