Basic Analysis

How reliable is the computer analysis with a basic membership? I know it's ~2000, but that could be anywhere from 0-1999.

Basic membership has the same quality of computer analysis as premium membership.  It's the quantity that changes.

Also, "~" means around, not less than.  Thus, ~2000 most likely refers to an ambiguous area between 1900 and 2100.

Yeah, it only really works for tactical blunders. Basically, any line it calculates where you lose material (or win your opponents) listen to it. But for positional-type moves.... it might as well be your goldfish teaching you. So, it can't really have a rating- just use it to see where you miss combinations.

That's not true... Paying members computer analysis is apparently ~2500. There isn't really a difference in terms of how effective it is, though.

OK, thanks for the replies. In that case, I will just use Chessmaster. I've compared them, and Chessmaster seems to be more reliable anyway.

 Really?  Wow, why would that be a feature?

I apologize mattattack, I was completely unaware that you were being given an inferior computer.

I didn't see a better computer analysis advertised as a premium bonus...

I'm pretty sure most computers out there are better. However, you should still use the chess.com computer anyway, because of it's inaccuracy, mistake and blunder count, which can be interesting.

Rybka has been proven the best chess computer, but on most computers, it doesn't function at maximum capacity, or so I've been told.

And sorry, the diagram should be black to move

So nytik, I think your right, a goldfish could do better.

Yes, Be3 is the correct move there.

And no, the computer, despite its lack of skill, at least knows how the pieces move.  A goldfish, having never observed chess before, does not.  (Perhaps there are exceptions, but those must be quite uncommon.) 

Also, as Grandmaster Roman Dzindzichashvili has pointed out, almost every program save Rybka favors material over space and position, making their analysis inferior, since they lack simple positional concepts and would prefer a free pawn to a better position.

You raise an interesting sub-issue here..its interesting that Dolphins and Whales are intelligent, yet they haven't built cities, etc....Perhaps its their physical structure and lack of thumbs that prevents them from things like chess...and would also prevent something in a structure like a goldfish from being a helpful chess analyst...just thinking outloud here.....probably really digressed too much............