Computer Game "Analysis" is Really Laughable

It really amuses me every time to read computer "analysis" and "advice" that the site provides after you have played a daily game. It is supposed, I guess, to help me identify deficiencies in my game and ultimately make an improvement.

Here are just two examples from the games I played recently.

In the first game I played a Spanish player and made a horrible move as early as move 7. Horrible and dead wrong from the strategic point of view which I felt right after I made it. My opponent have lost two tempi in six moves, and what I did? I closed the center?! Opening it up, or keeping tension, was such an instinctive and natural decision to make. So my pawn structure ossified and there was no way for me to improve position by favorably changing the structure (no pawn lever in sight, Hans Kmoch would say; and the pawn play and structure is the essence of strategy, some even say, the pawn play IS Strategy). In the process, a few of my pieces became ugly, real ugly placed, in other words, useless wood. I mean a grotesque position I could only hate myself for. And I really did.

My opponent could have done whatever he pleased. Levers abound to improve position, f7-f5, c7-c6. Yet, he unjustifiably sacked his Knight too soon (there was plenty of room for that after some position strengthening) and later he blundered so I undeservedly won the game.

And what Chesscom tells me in its after-game analysis?

Nice win. You were never in trouble.

Amazing! Hilarious! Entertaining!

.

.

My strategically horrible move was just an inaccuracy. Hey, an inaccuracy! Even after the disgusting move the engine evaluates position as +0.51. Holy cow.

The engine was right in one thing though. It rightly stated there was no brilliant moves from me in the game.

.

But I "improved" in the second game. I was told to make a brilliant move! I was so proud of myself. For a move where I just forked the opponent's Queen and Bishop. A most natural move. But for chesscom analysis technology it was brilliant one, a gift from heaven.

Again, hilarious and entertaining!

All this raises a couple of uncomfortable questions for chesscom. Can their "analysis" really help improve your game? You see some numbers, you see some stats, but where is the beef, chesscom?

In the New Chess Age with all technology and engines and stuff nothing is (properly) judged anymore -- only counted. "The power of judging was then subtracted from what it was necessary for a man to learn to do," George Trow, Within the context of no context.

Personally, I would be just happy if you @erik (CEO), @samcopeland (Director of Content) give me something like this, in plain English, no need for stats and numbers really (from Bronstein's Zurich 1953),

Would silicon wise guys ever be able to reach such a level of sophistication?

Well, the Google translate, or any other, are still struggling to bring the right meaning in language. Here is an example from the early days of computer translation efforts (it would be fair to say, things have improved since then, slightly). They fed the silicon moron with "Out of sight, out of mind." Then the Artificial "Intelligence" creature translated to a foreign language and back. And what it got? "Invisible idiot"!

A nice self-description. Is chesscom analysis technology any farther from this with its "you were never in trouble" and "brilliant move" remarks?

Your thoughts?