Play vs the Computer or Play against other people?

It's hard to play against good people when you are a beginner.  Nobody good usually wants to play you.  So some play the computer and possibly develop other problems.  The low-level computer plays stupid moves yes your right, however, there is some chess software like Chessmaster Grandmaster addition, that have their own "playing styles," perhaps you could check that out.

It's an old program though, but it has been updated over the years, I'm not sure if they updated it again or not.

You could in your settings play people of about 200 rating points higher than yourself sometimes.  It's better than just playing people your own rating when you are below 1000, not that being below 1000 is a bad thing.  We all start somewhere.  I was probably lower than 500 when I started playing.

The best way to get better at chess is to make chess friends and play against them.  Usually, people here on chess.com just play against random opponents and never try to make any friends.  The key to happiness in life is to be social, meet new people, and make connections, and treat everyone with the respect that they deserve.  

A man of quotes.  I like that.  I don't know why you post what you post, or why you think everything needs to be resolved with quotes.  You posted a counter-argument that stated that I was wrong, and you were right.  If your intent is not to argue, what are you attempting then?  Enlighten me?

I had never heard of Chessmaster Grandmaster edition before but I will check it out. Do you know if I can download it for free?

The problem with a computer rating is that they do not seem to be consistent in it. A computer rated 1200 seems to play very differently from an actual 1200. They always seem to make great moves at first and then follow it up with a blunder. And also at the level they are terrible at endgames. They do not have an intuition on these positions A human might have a plan albeit a bad one but the engine just seems to move its king around in circles or whatever. It just feels unrealistic and I do not like it. But each to their own I guess.

Agree with you on the last paragraph.

I don't.

I thought the Heisman and Nunn quotes might be interesting.

Computers do not think like humans so playing against them for learning purposes might be futile.

You learn from computers everyday even though they do not "think like Humans". Everyone is using computers, from the guy who wants to analyse his last game, John Do who is tinkering his openings for a tournament, to Magnus who wants to find new interesting lines. These are the same computers You play against, the only Difference is that You can chose which level of the computer You want to play against.

Now, do You really think playing against computers is futile Because "they Don't think like Humans" ?

Every time someone tries to say something to you about what you are cutting and pasting you ask for a quote.  Actions speak louder than words.  I read you by your actions, not by the backpedaling you are doing now.

I don't believe that.  But that is okay, feel free to hide behind technicalities.

Anyway, I just had a long discussion with a Life coach.  He told me not to blame playing higher-rated opponents or computer opponents for my problems.  People don't get depressed by playing against the computer.  It's just a game.  People get depressed because their wife cheats on them, etc.

Let me know if you decide to try to identify a logical thought process behind your choice of what to believe.

In what way, do you perceive my actions as being inconsistent with a person who posted the Heisman and Nunn quotes because of a belief that they might be interesting?

You imagine me to be backpedaling from thoughts that you somehow think you perceive as having taken place in my head?