I wouldn't recomend analyzing a game with chess.com engines. Even the strongest computers can be off on their assesment, but having one at 2000 will miss alot of key tactics, which is where computers should be near perfect in. It also tends to think my best games are the ones that are filled with inaccuricies and mistakes, pretty wierd. I think you should find a much stronger engine at least 2600, but also analyze the game yourself too because it may not detect positional mistakes.
Computer Analysis at ~2000 strength
Sort:
I do analyze my games, but the ones I care about most I try to have a third party do the analysis. As I said, I'm more likely to put a positive spin on my moves.
I recently got a game analyzed at 2000 strength by the chess.com comp. I thought it was, for the most part, terrible. It never mentioned any of my opponent's inaccuracies, only mine, and there were positions where it suggested different lines claiming to be equal that were, frankly, not equal (as in entire pieces could be won). I doubt I am above 2000 in rating, so my only conclusion is this: the computer obviously isn't analyzing at a strength of 2000. I'd like to post the game here with both my analysis and the computer's. Mine will be prejudicial, of course, because I will want to believe the moves I made were stronger than they actually were. In the end, though, I would like to know if I am wasting my time submitting my games to be analyzed by chess.com.